The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Papers: Royal Mail Strike

Mr Derek Hussey: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that Members, including yourself, will realise that there is great difficulty in receiving Order Papers and Committee papers at present. Are there any plans to ensure that Members will receive their papers at home on time?

Sir John Gorman: I am informed by the Clerk that the Royal Mail strike is not helping. There is considerable difficulty in getting papers to Members’ homes as early as we would like. I shall certainly take up the matter because I appreciate the difficulty, especially for Members who live as far away as yourself.

Agriculture Industry

Sir John Gorman: I call Mr Savage to move the motion.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I submitted an amendment to the motion. I have received no word from the Speaker’s Office of its being rejected, and I contend that it is perfectly in order. We are here for an important debate on agriculture. The motion before the House clearly states that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should take a more proactive role in furthering the interests of the agriculture industry. I wanted to add certain things that the Department could do while taking a proactive role. The Speaker’s Office should have some respect for Back-Benchers. We should be told.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I was also amazed that you did not even know that the amendment had been rejected. We should at least have some procedure whereby the Speaker informs the appropriate people when he is not accepting an amendment.
We have plenty of time today, but we shall not be able to table an amendment that would highlight two or three issues that even the Ulster Farmers’ Union and other agriculture organisations have been raising.

Sir John Gorman: You were kind enough to tell me your concerns about the amendment. I have made some enquiries in the past few seconds and found that the Speaker — as is within his powers — has chosen two amendments, but yours is not one of them. I do not know what the explanation for that is, but I hope that during the debate you will be able to make the points that you would have made in your amendment.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Sir. To which Standing Order does the Speaker refer?

Sir John Gorman: I shall return to that matter in due course.

Mr George Savage: I beg to move
That this Assembly recognises the difficulties facing the agricultural industry and the importance of the agricultural sector to the Northern Ireland economy and asks that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development take a more proactive role in furthering the interests of the agricultural industry.
We are meeting at a time of crisis. Although that is hardly an unusual statement in this place, the crisis to which I refer is not a political one. It is the crisis that has ravaged Northern Ireland agriculture over the past decade. The depth and seriousness of the depression in agriculture is sometimes hard to comprehend. It is almost biblical in proportion. The disaster seems almost endless: BSE, the pig crisis, bad weather and consequent bad harvests, the crash in farmgate prices and farm incomes, and the chronic debt levels in farming.
I wish to emphasise from the outset that what I wish to say is meant to be constructive. Negativity, criticisms and blame-apportionment will not solve the crisis. We have had too much of that in this place already. It is time to put that behind us and behave as responsible people whose duty now must be to save one of Northern Ireland’s key industries. I tabled the motion on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party to help chart a way forward that will help Northern Ireland’s agriculture industry not merely survive, but thrive.
Northern Ireland farmers owe approximately £490 million to the banks. That figure does not even include what they owe to the animal feed manufacturers. Normally, that seemingly enormous level of debt would not be a problem, as it equals only 5% of the total capital asset value of Northern Ireland’s farms, which stands at £10·63 billion. Debt and debt servicing have become a problem because of the collapse of farm incomes. How can farmers service debts when they are losing money?
The figures speak for themselves. Of Northern Ireland farmers, 46% earn less than zero. Only 10% earn over £10,000 a year. Year after year, decline in farm incomes makes for depressing reading. In the past four years, they have fallen by 23%, 15%, 25% and 54% respectively. That means that farm income today stands at only 22% of its 1995 level.
Pig and poultry farmers lose an average of £20,100 a year. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development estimates that not a single agriculture sector will break even in the present year — all will lose money.
The situation is twice as bad here as in the rest of the United Kingdom because of last year’s chronic harvest. Farm incomes stand at slightly more than 20% of the 1995 levels, whereas the UK figure is 40%.
It is important that the Assembly express its sympathy to the farming industry. However, we must do much more than that. Assembly Members must act. They must be seen to act, and they must act now.
Agriculture remains a key sector of Northern Ireland’s economy. Some 59,251 people are directly employed on farms. Another 19,490 work in food processing, 4,560 in animal feed and 1,100 in sales. The total number employed in the agrifood industry is 84,401. That compares to only 31,840 jobs in construction. Even manufacturing has only 20,000 more employees than agriculture. As a significant employer, agriculture must be the Assembly’s major and pressing concern. However, there have been more than 5,000 job losses in the sector in the past five years.
Two interrelated problems co-exist at the heart of the agriculture sector — drastically declining farm incomes and debt servicing. The scale of the problem calls for a major broad-based and sector-wide structural reform of the entire agriculture industry, and not merely piecemeal measures that tinker with minor details on the margins of the problem.
To begin with, it is a question of attitude. We must see a "can-do" attitude develop quickly, both in the Departments of State and in the Assembly. The whole point of devolution is empowerment. It is not good enough to poodle along with the failed policies of direct rule. A whole raft of proactive, imaginative and new policies are needed to make a real difference and to tackle one of the greatest economic crises to hit the Province. Making a difference is what the Assembly should be all about. I propose action, and action now. Agriculture needs what amounts to a new deal, just as that great President, Roosevelt, introduced a new deal to tackle America’s economic ills during the Great Depression. Therefore, we must develop new policies fit for this hour of crisis.
I have always believed that sensible people learn from the good practice of others. Existing methods for agriculture have been demonstrably ineffective. Now is the time for new initiatives. There is much that we can learn from our European partners. Structures exist in Denmark and France that, if implemented here, could go a long way towards alleviating and even resolving our present crisis. For example, Danish agricultural law, of which I have a copy here, could, in a new and imaginative way, resolve the problem of farmers’ assets being locked up in land, farm stock and buildings. The release of those assets would perform two important functions. First, it would provide an exit strategy for older farmers who want to retire. Secondly, it would provide a mechanism for new entrants who seek a farming career.
The Danish law stipulates that farmers do not simply pass their farms on to a son or a family member. Instead, the farm must be sold either to a son at 85% of the market value or to a stranger at the full market price if the son does not want to farm. That money then becomes a farmer’s retirement lump sum. It enables the farmer to retire with dignity after a lifetime of hard work. It can be used to service a retirement pension or be passed on to some of his children. By that method, the capital asset value, which is locked up and untouchable in our country unless the farmer sells up, is released. It ceases to be dead money and becomes economically active money. It is an imaginative and constructive way to ease up the movement of capital. Moreover, there are all sorts of spin-offs from it in the banking, insurance, pension and other service sectors, and it enables new blood to enter the farming sector, bringing with it new methods, new ideas and innovations.
In Denmark, the son or the buyer funds his purchase from three sources: establishment savings accounts, state guaranteed loans, and borrowing. There is a much better lending climate for farmers in the Danish banking system. Establishment savings accounts permit a new entrant to save up to almost £11,000 a year in order to establish himself as a farmer, with one third rated as tax-free. Beyond that, he can borrow a further 12% of the purchase price through a state guaranteed loan — typically up to £115,000. The key point is that that is a loan, not a grant. It must be repaid.
As a loan, it does not infringe European Union Agenda 2000 competition regulations, as it does not constitute unfair competition or state aid. I have a copy of the regulations here, and they are quite specific that that is permitted.
As part of the Agenda 2000 reforms, regulations governing agriculture have been greatly simplified into what EU Agriculture Commissioner, Franz Fischler, calls
"a simple and coherent framework."
Aids for investment in farms are permitted up to 40% of eligible expenses, and up to 50% in less favoured areas. A raft of aids is also permitted in the 40% and 50% objective areas specifically to set up young farmers. Therefore the Danish scheme is perfectly within, and consistent with, the European guidelines, as one would expect it to be and, indeed, as it would have to be.
Repayments by the farmer are subsidised in the first years — interest-free in the first four years, with a 75% reduction in the second four-year period, and thereafter on a gradually reducing sliding scale until the farmer has paid off the full amount. That is the equivalent of front-loading a mortgage, which is already a common financial device in this country. Such a loan structure would not be unknown to our banks.
Therefore, there is no reason why that scheme, or a local form of it, could not be introduced in Northern Ireland. All we need is the will to implement it. I have had a copy the Danish agricultural law translated. We could use that legislative framework to draw up our own legislation, adapting it where necessary to reflect local circumstances.
The better lending climate in Danish banks is largely due to two factors. First, the banks have confidence that the Government know where they are going with a well- thought-out policy. Banking is about confidence. Secondly, the young farmer who applies for a loan comes armed with an impressive 10-year business plan, designed at his college of agriculture and written specifically for the farm that he wishes to buy. He also comes armed with a practically-based and business-orientated agriculture qualification — the so-called green certificate.
The Danish scheme is not unique on the continent. France has a similar scheme called young farmer installation loans. Again, there are low-interest rates in the first years of repayment, and the five big French banks underwrite the whole system.

Sir John Gorman: Order. There are about four conversations going on. This is an important debate, and I strongly recommend that Members should have their conversations outside the Chamber.

Mr George Savage: In France, the loans are used to buy out all the inheritors who have an interest in the property. The borrowing limit is higher than it is in Denmark — as much as £150,000. However, the principle is the same — it is a loan and not a grant, and it is administered by the big banks and the financial institutions. That France and Denmark have similar schemes is more evidence that such schemes are widely accepted in the European Union.
Should the Assembly adopt a similar scheme, it would be opportune to open up negotiations at the earliest possible moment with our major banks and financial institutions in order to have them on board from the outset. The financial mechanisms would be better administered by private enterprise, or by a partnership that involves private enterprise and the Northern Ireland Executive, than by the creation of some clumsy state institution such as a land bank. We do not want to create any more "big government" or yet another quango.
To reduce interest rate repayments, especially in the early years of repayment, and to extend the duration of loans to periods more consistent with the working lives of farmers — typically, 20 years, roughly the same as for the average house mortgage — are simple fiscal mechanisms that would ease the cash-flow problems of many farmers.
If rescheduling of debt is to be the World Bank’s recommended course of action for Third-World countries, surely the same measure of tolerance needs to be extended to our own agriculture sector, even for reasons of self- interest. We cannot afford to permit the agriculture sector to crash. If we do, the knock-on effect on other sectors will be enormous. It will have a serious impact on the service sector of the economy. Many jobs in the service sector rely on the agriculture and manufacturing sectors.
The mechanisms and changes that I propose would have profound consequences for restructuring the farming sector. I have tried to outline the ways forward, and to flesh out those plans with some detail and worked examples. If adopted in broad principle by the Assembly, the proposals would need to be worked out in operational detail in a constructive and co-operative way.
I welcome the ongoing talks with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. By putting agriculture on a new footing, we can help to lift that critical sector of the economy out of deepening recession and into profitability and a well grounded success.

Sir John Gorman: The debate is scheduled to last two hours this morning and an hour after lunch. I shall allow seven minutes for each Member who wishes to speak, 30 minutes for the Minister to respond and 10 minutes for Mr Savage’s winding-up speech.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I regret that none of the amendments tabled by Back-Benchers were accepted by the Speaker. I shall take up that matter with him. The debate is limited in time, and it would have been good to have extra time for those Members who wished to table amendments. That would not have diminished the motion but strengthened it. I agree with Mr Savage. His proposals need to be considered.
Our farmers need to be defended against Europe. Too often, Ministers, the Department and others say that they can do nothing because Europe does not allow it. However, ‘Environmental Regulations and Farmers’, a document published by a quango — the Better Regulation Task Force — set up by the British Government, makes it clear that a stand must be taken against Europe. One of its proposals is that we need
"to ensure that European Commission (EC) directives properly reflect the interests of British farmers and are practical and enforceable."
That body has discovered that agriculture Directives do not express the best interests of farmers in the United Kingdom, especially in Northern Ireland. The task force also recommends that
"as a general rule, the UK should not implement EC directives ahead of other Member States."
Will the Minister assure us that none of those orders from Europe will be implemented here until they are implemented in the other member states of the EU? Why should we hang ourselves with a rope manufactured by the French and Germans, and why should we hang the farming community? If the Minister wants to be proactive, she should take a firm stand along the lines of that document.
The Minister needs to face up to the terrible threat that will develop as BSE spreads on the continent. Some time ago, I said that the continent would get what we were passing through, but people laughed. All the signs are that BSE will be a threat throughout Europe. Meat from countries in the European Union whose beef is not up to the standards of the beef produced by our farmers must be banned from our country. Why should meat that does not meet the standards demanded of our farmers come into the country? The Minister should take a firm stand on that. France is already violating the law on that matter. However, I do not want anyone to misrepresent what I say: I am not saying that we should ban all meat from the continent, merely that we should ban all meat that is not up to the standards that our farmers have to meet. That is reasonable.
I welcome the banning of meat-and-bone meal. At the last session of the European Parliament, there was great opposition to that ban, and it has been introduced only because European countries have been forced to agree to it by the spread of BSE. I remember when the European Parliament wanted us to kill off as many cattle as we could, but this time I did not hear a single Member from any European country talking about slaughtering cattle. It seems that there are different rules for the farming community in the UnitedKingdom, which includes the farmers in NorthernIreland.
We also need a farm restructuring scheme. I hope that the Minister will spend a few minutes on the crisis in the pig industry during her allocated 30 minutes. The money that has been offered to farmers who have left the pig industry is not substantial — £200 for a sow is by no means adequate compensation and will not help farmers much. However, I suppose that it is something, and we must welcome it. None the less, at present, we have only a promise from the UnitedKingdom Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on which he has not yet delivered. He has not delivered on his second promise to those who are still involved in the pig industry. We should be clear about those two situations. There must be a farm restructuring scheme. We must encourage new entrants into farming or the industry will perish, and there must be compensation for those currently involved in farming who want to get out.
I welcome the material on the Danish scheme; such schemes should be carefully studied. I would also like the Minister to comment on the report that was submitted to the Strasbourg Parliament last month. The introduction of a single enhanced environment scheme is essential. The Minister and the Department should be proactive about that.
I support the motion, although I regret that the amendments to it were not permitted. I do not believe that the mover would have opposed them.

Mr P J Bradley: When I first saw the motion I was tempted to table an amendment to include words such as "inherit". I also wondered about the use of the word "more". Having said that, I support the motion in principle.
It is a reminder — and Mr Savage used the word repeatedly — of the crisis that agriculture was and is still in. It is the same crisis that first surfaced in the mid-1990s. It was the responsibility of other Ministers then, but we have now inherited that responsibility.
In fairness to everyone, when we got the Assembly up and running, that nightmare was taken on board immediately. When recovery looked almost impossible — and perhaps to some it still does — the different groupings rolled up their sleeves and took it seriously. We adopted a proactive approach. I refer to both the Minister’s and the Department’s proactive role to date, as well as to the Agriculture Committee. There has also been support from external bodies such as the Ulster Farmers’ Union and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers’ Association. Everyone who wanted the Assembly to get up and running made genuine efforts to take an in-depth look at where we were.
The SDLP recently held its conference in Newcastle, where there was an item on the agenda on a proactive agriculture programme. I am not giving away any party secrets when I say that the item was placed on the agenda by none other than the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. It was her thinking and her intentions that brought about that proactive programme. The word "proactive" is not completely new, but it recognises that the situation still has to be addressed.
Agriculture is our largest industry, and it must be saved for a multitude of reasons. A proactive role is the only way forward. It is not simply a Northern Ireland problem, but, as the Chairperson of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee said, it is also a European problem, although those countries deal with it in different ways, and some do not deal with it at all. Who should deal with it? Again, I suppose we have to start with the Minister and officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Agricultural and Rural Development Committee. Other Ministers could slot in to assist the industry, such as the Minister of the Environment, Mr Foster.
Many farmers would benefit from having their building sites approved for sale, as they can fetch around £40,000 to £45,000 if they are in the right location. That money could prove a lifeline to many farmers; it could save their farms. The problem is that those sites are often in an environmentally sensitive area or in an area of outstanding natural beauty. Those are beautiful environmental titles, but they still prevent farmers from selling the sites. Some consideration should be given to that matter, and Mr Foster did express a degree of sympathy with my views. He recognised that the lifeline to which I refer could be given to some farmers.
Other Departments such as the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment could also help, as could the Department for Regional Development. Rural proofing is inbuilt in all Departments now, which most Members welcome. We could perhaps expand on rural proofing and make it even more rural-conscious, with each Department being more proactive in rural matters to assist the economy.
Nick Brown and his team in Westminster have a role to play. I often wonder whether they know where Northern Ireland is and how seriously they take the Northern Ireland issue. However, recently we have been led to believe that they are taking the matter seriously, and we can challenge that. The Council of Ministers in Europe also has a role to play. Last, but by no means least, the farmers themselves have a proactive role to play.
During the Committee’s in-depth research into debt and all aspects of the crisis, millions of words were said and recorded, and some stick out in my memory — "quality produce", "good husbandry" and "selective breeding". Those fit into the proactive role that everyone will have to play. I make no apology for including the farmer. The surviving farmer is the willing farmer, the farmer who is willing to adopt a proactive role. Farmers are still crying out for help, and they have expressed their willingness to join us to promote and save the industry.
I support the motion.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. First, I would like to say that seven minutes is not long enough to deliver the speech that I had in mind, but I will make an attempt. I support this very timely motion, particularly as it comes in a week in which we face the onslaught of BSE repercussions from mainland Europe due to the situation that it now finds itself in. There are a number of reasons why farmers find themselves in this debt situation — BSE, market failure, and the state of sterling and the euro are all part of it. Some people would not like to admit that there is market failure, but there has to be a quality product before there will be a market.
People in shops and supermarkets up and down the country are in the business of selling quality food because they know they have a ready market week on week. Farmers are not in that position, and have not been for years. That started, as far as we are concerned, because the British Government were never prepared to take responsibility for their part in the BSE situation and the fact that meat-and-bone meal was allowed to be put into cattle food without being properly processed. They should have taken responsibility for that, but they did not. Neither did they compensate farmers accordingly. Since then, our markets have been lost, and farmers have had to suffer the effects of the European ban and increased costs as a result of regulations. We have been anchored to the very high incidence of BSE in the main part of England, leaving out Scotland and part of Wales. The Government have anchored us with them for a very long time. We could have gone into new markets long ago if it had not been for the British insisting that we stay part of the so-called GB. In this area we have, and always have had, a very low incidence of BSE, and we should have entered those markets long ago. We are now locked in yet again, probably for several years, as a result of the difficulties emanating from Europe.
The British Government and ourselves have to look to the future, for there will be a future after BSE. We should be saying that there is a future for farmers if they have quality produce and if they tap those markets in years to come. We need to work towards that, but our Programme for Government does not prepare us for that. There is nothing there to bring new people into the industry or let people leave it in a dignified way. Payments will be made to those in marketing and those who want to leave farming, but there is nothing to encourage people into the industry, which is wrong. That has to be addressed — if not now, in future years. There should be some type of retirement scheme — tailored, perhaps, so that it is not as expensive as the Minister mentioned. It should be tailored to suit our needs. That would be a proactive move. We also need an environmental scheme, for which the farm organisations have pushed strongly, and I believe that that can be done.
We have witnessed £15 million being taken away with the Sub-Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (SPARD) scheme, under which, as farmers know, grants were paid out during the last few years. That was taken away, but we were never told where it went. If we look at other areas, such as the South and France, and their commitment to the farmers and to what they see as farming in the future, we see that they all expect to have a food farming industry in years to come. That does not seem to be coming across from our Governments; they point to training as being the way out. However, that would encourage people to move away from farming altogether and away from the countryside, which is not what we are trying to do.
In relation to the payment system here, farmers need localised payments to be paid out properly and on time. That is not happening. The Minister told us yesterday that 180 complaints was a very small number, but if all the complaints that go to the farm organisations were to go to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development daily, staff there would get very little work done. What is the format for payments to farmers in relation to the suckler cow payments? Is someone who submitted an application form in October being paid before a person who submitted a form in July? That seems to be the case at the moment. Those are small issues, but they are important to local farmers.

Mr David Ford: I do not propose to list a detailed catalogue of the existing problems in the agriculture industry. If we did not know them already, the mover has set them down in the motion. However, I would like to add my voice to the comments made by Dr Paisley. The motion, although acceptable, is much weaker than it might have been. It could have been considerably improved by amendment. An amendment to the motion would have beefed it up and added more detail to it. My amendment would have been slightly better than Dr Paisley’s, but that is the way the world goes.
I would like to highlight some specific areas in which the Minister needs to act in the near future. Undoubtedly, deep within the bowels of Dundonald House, her officials are looking into the issues raised by the Better Regulation Task Force — the Haskins report, in other words — which principally applied to England but which clearly has lessons for the whole of the UK. I ask the Minister, in her response, to tell us where Northern Ireland stands in regards to Lord Haskins’s recommendations and how she proposes to deal with them.
The first and most obvious problem, which Dr Paisley has already highlighted, is that the Haskins report has left no room for doubt that EU Directives, when applied in the UK, are being gold-plated. I have no problem with the concept of seeking to achieve the highest possible standards, but I want to see such standards being implemented across Europe. I do not simply wish to see British farmers producing top-quality goods while others get the markets because their produce is cheaper. That benefits neither farmers nor consumers.
Let us ensure that the issue of gold-plating is taken on board and, insofar as the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has a separate role from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), let us ask the Minister to do something about it. A full impact assessment of the implementation of new regulations is needed. That has not happened in the past and if it is not done in the future it will continue to weaken our domestic industry.
The issue of proper compensation for animal welfare measures needs to be addressed. We can make a case for saying that high standards of animal welfare are beneficial to the image of our industry and our consumers, but only if it means that people get the benefit of a higher standard of product. When supermarket chains import chickens from Thailand because they can get them for half a penny a kilo less than chickens produced to a higher standard at home, we clearly have a problem. We need to demand that it be dealt with.
The Haskins report highlighted a huge problem on the issue of record-keeping and bureaucracy, and there must be a way to address those issues. Again, it is part of the joined-up government issue that our Executive have talked so much about, but which is clearly not a feature of life across the UK in general. If we are to have joined-up government, let us see Government agencies, or even separate sectors within the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, start to share information and reduce the number of times that farmers must fill in the same form.
Let us make greater use of the Internet for the small but increasing number of farmers capable of using it in order to reduce their pen and paper exercises, which no one looks forward to after a long day working outside. If people can enter information on the computer once, and not have to enter it six times using pen and ink, that surely would be beneficial.
I am sure that even Dr Paisley would agree with me on one example of gold-plating. The standard UK integrated administration and control system (IACS) form requires 18 pages but the Irish form deals with the same information needed to satisfy the EU Directive in two pages. I am sure that we could all agree on that regardless of our party. I see that Dr Paisley is smiling and Mr McHugh is nodding, so perhaps we have established a consensus on that cross-border issue.
A secondary issue is that complaints need to be dealt with, as Mr McHugh highlighted yesterday and today. It is long past the time that a proper ombudsman scheme be set up so that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development would no longer act — as MAFF does — as judge and jury in its own cases. Whatever people say about the amount of formal complaints that get through, there is a huge level of dissatisfaction among farmers about the way that those issues are dealt with. In Scotland, there is already an ombudsman scheme in place. I could go through the detail of the three stages, but I suspect that, given the time that I have, I had better not attempt to do so. In Wales, there is an agreement in the new partnership Government, and consultation is taking place as to how exactly that will operate.
I have the consultation document, although I shall not read the Welsh language version. The schemes mentioned in the Welsh document that could be considered by an ombudsman include arable area payments, beef special premiums, suckler cow premiums, extensification payments, sheep annual premiums and hill livestock compensatory allowances (HLCAs), as well as Tir Mynydd, the replacement for the HLCA.
Such matters must account for a huge proportion of dissatisfaction among farmers because of the extremely fine detail involved in our bureaucratic procedures. The people who must fill in the forms spend sleepless nights wondering whether they have completed them correctly. Some people risk losing large sums of grant money as a result of relatively minor mistakes in the paperwork. If Scotland and Wales can do something about bureaucracy, we should also do something.
I welcome the fact that the Minister appears to have moved away from the bureaucratic opposition in the four UK Agriculture Departments and is considering a new entrant or restructuring scheme. Such a scheme would help to build a viable industry in Northern Ireland for future generations, who, at present, are reluctant to consider a farming career.
As the Minister said, it is not so long ago that, as a result of a vote in the Agriculture Committee of the National Assembly for Wales, Mr Carwyn Jones, the Minister for Rural Affairs, was forced to change his position and ask his officials to draw up a scheme. When the Minister submits her impartial report on the schemes she can be assured that the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee is likely to maintain its belief in the need for a retirement scheme that will lead to restructuring and give new entrants confidence about the future. We should try to encourage such confidence.

Mr Boyd Douglas: We have heard about the problems faced by the agriculture industry in the Province, so I shall not address them at great length. However, I must draw the House’s attention to low — in some cases non-existent — incomes. The problems are due to many factors; we have no control over some of them, but we do have responsibility for others.
Of the factors that are beyond our control, the most important is the strength of sterling and the weakness of the euro. That affects export and import trade. Imported goods are produced in conditions that are not as regulated as ours and are not produced to the same high standards of welfare that apply to Northern Ireland produce. A prime example is the importation of meat from pigs that are housed in stalls, where they are tethered. That practice is outlawed in Northern Ireland, but our farmers are not compensated for that. The regulation and expense faced by our producers do not apply in neighbouring European countries. That is grossly unfair. The pig industry has been decimated, and farmers throughout the country are disappointed that the rescue scheme announced earlier this year has not yet appeared.
Arable sector prices have been very poor in the past year. Despite that, the arable payments timetable has been put back another month. That is within the remit of Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and should not have happened. In the beef sector, prices are constantly decreasing. There is still no low-incidence BSE status, which is imperative for the Northern Ireland beef industry. That matter must be pursued vigorously. We often hear that the problem with helping our producers is that any grants would be construed as state aid. However, such measures are within our remit and would not breach the regulations.
We could reopen the enhancement section of our Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) scheme and ensure that enhancements are included when the countryside management scheme eventually opens. That would provide jobs and diversification for farmers and related industries. Many nurseries have produced quickthorns; local engineers can produce the gates; local builders can repair the buildings. All those measures would provide a boost for the farmers and the rural economy that would enhance the countryside and tourism.
We should also ensure that rural development measures are directed at farmers and that moneys taken through modulation are put back into farmers’ businesses. The money should be spent in the rural communities, which would support small industries and businesses. An expanded pollution control scheme, of which all farmers can avail themselves, is needed. At present, farmers do not have the finance to use such facilities, and struggle to survive. That would help the industry and would also cut pollution and enhance the environment. We must be proactive, not reactive — use the carrot, not the stick. Over the years, that method has been shown to work best.
Although there has been discussion about a retirement scheme — and that may have its merits — I urge the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to investigate the possibility of helping young farmers at the other end of the chain. The Minister must investigate the systems of our European neighbours, many of which offer low-cost loans or interest relief schemes to young farmers who have agricultural qualifications and a good business plan. We recently missed the opportunity to offer a milk quota to the young farmers.
We must cut red tape in the Department and ensure that money goes directly to those who need it. DrPaisley referred to a document from the Better Regulation Task Force, which was set up to make recommendations to the Government on how the environment can be protected without placing a burden on the farming community. I agree with many of its recommendations. The UK should not implement EC Directives ahead of other member states. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should re-examine ways to compensate farmers — especially small farmers — for the additional costs imposed by certain UK welfare regulations. The UK Government should resist demands for further animal welfare regulations and should lobby to raise standards in other EU member states to match those that currently obtain in the UK.
Dr Paisley’s document also suggests an increase in the level of grants to improve slurry storage systems. That is important and would improve the environment. We need to ensure that information on grants and best practice in slurry disposal is effectively publicised.
The demand for record-keeping by farmers should be reduced. The various statutory authorities should co- ordinate their visits to farms where possible, with a view to saving farmers’ time and money.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should take on board those points and those of my Colleagues, as they are mostly items that can be administered by our own Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and that can only impact for the good of agriculture in Northern Ireland. In the past, agriculture has been able to change with the times. Now is a time of change. Agriculture can change for the future, but that level of change must be such that we can reinvest and survive in rural areas.

Sir John Gorman: To return to the matter of the amendments, Rev Dr Paisley and Mr Ford will find some interesting information in Standing Order 15(3).

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Surely the Speaker’s Office should tell a Member who puts down an amendment whether it is to be accepted or not. That would be done in Westminster, where there is far more business than there is here.
We are dealing with a vital topic of discussion, and each person’s time is limited to seven minutes. We are at an hour of crisis in the agriculture industry. Something is wrong about the whole industry, and we need to take steps to alter it.

Sir John Gorman: The Business Committee should address the two points made by the Member. In fairness to the Speaker, I should point out that he had two people searching for the Member and myself to inform us of the situation. Efforts were made but they were not successful.

Mr James Leslie: This is our third debate on the agriculture industry’s problems. It seems to me that those problems have not been alleviated during all that time but have probably worsened.
The problems are best summed up by a 70-year-old farmer in my own constituency who thought that he had retired two years ago before realising that he would have to continue to work. He said to me that sheep used to keep him, but now he keeps sheep. That sums up the problems fairly well.
At their core lies the policy of malign neglect by MAFF. That Ministry well knows that market forces will sort out the industry ruthlessly. That is what is happening at the moment.
It is shocking how Mr Nick Brown, the current Agriculture Minister, listens kindly and expresses great sympathy to the farmers but does not seem to ever address the root of the problem. The Ministry needs to start by spelling out the truth. I note that our own Minister has moved in that direction, and I commend her for that. When Ms Rodgers answered a question in the House yesterday she acknowledged difficulties that will affect businesses, dependent on production subsidies, as a result of European Union enlargement.
We need to be aware that, whereas in England the tenant farming system has had the effect of stopping levels of agriculture debt getting too high because the farmer has no equity in the land to set against the debt, that is not the situation here. That needs to be taken into account when one is trying to negotiate packages that apply to the whole of the UK. We have to be aware that the problem is far worse in Northern Ireland than in England.
I fully support and practise the eating of our own produce. I cannot understand why anyone would want to eat imported meat, but that is another matter. However, we cannot eat all our own produce. We need to get back into the export markets. Even if we could get over the problem of BSE and the export ban, the situation would still be difficult on price grounds because of the strength of sterling. That is entirely a matter of market forces; the Government cannot influence it, although they could soften the blow by pulling down some of the agrimonetary compensation.
Realistically we are competing against other producers. In the case of beef, we compete against Australia and Argentina, and in the case of lamb we compete against New Zealand. Those countries manage to get their product to our market at a lower cost than we can.
EU enlargement is relevant, although the situation has nothing to do with EU enlargement — it has to do with improved production by eastern European countries. Those countries are now in the same position as Australia, New Zealand and Argentina in that they can attempt to sell their product to our market provided that they meet the relevant criteria, which would not be difficult. Even if enlargement does not take place, if those countries improve their production, a further problem will arise with increased competition in the foodstuffs market.
We must take all those factors into account, and it is likely that the effect of market forces will force a fall in production from our industry.
We have some £160 million of production subsidies coming into our industry. The Minister should go to Brussels and point out that the problem is pretty much the same throughout Europe. She should say that subsidy should be redirected, as was attempted under parts of Agenda 2000. That has been started in a small way, but it should be much greater and more concerted in order to redirect subsidies towards lowering production. Money should also be spent on environmental improvement projects. By doing that, she would draw the rural development part of her brief into play.
I shall give a simple example. At the moment, the river system is, to a large extent, an industrial sewer for agricultural produce. The run-off from slurry, for example, contributes heavily to the contamination of the river system. Therefore, we do not have anything like the fish stocks that we could have, and we do not have that alternative source of activity in the countryside.
In Denmark, the problem is dealt with by using a system of anaerobic digesters, which is effectively a method of industrialising the storage, reprocessing and recycling of slurry. The Danes are able to do that in a way that, first, is more efficient for the land and, secondly, causes almost no environmental damage — certainly much less than our own systems causes. Those more radical measures must be addressed. I am afraid that that involves the people in the industry and the Department all being much more brutally realistic about where the industry is going. It is clear to me that it is going to go in that direction, whether we do anything about it or not. Therefore, we had better move in the direction in which the market is moving. Mrs Thatcher once said:
"You can’t buck the market."
That very much applies to the state of the agriculture industry.
An accurate parallel can be drawn with the textile industry. Northern Ireland found itself with an industry that had already moved out of the rest of the UK. The textile industry targeted by the IDB as a way to get investment into Northern Ireland and to preserve jobs. I do not criticise it in that respect. Where the IDB has got it right is that in the past two years it has effectively changed its policy. It has said that it is moving on and that the industrial base has to be moved more towards the new economy. It has not rushed in with more subsidies for problem areas in the textile industry.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I compliment Mr Savage for introducing the motion. It enables us, once again, to address the sequential problems faced by the farming industry and to seek a solution. The words "more proactive" should not be taken as criticism of the activities of the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and her Department. I do not think that that was the mover of the motion’s intention. However, if it was, the motion takes no account of initiatives such as the interdepartmental vision group set up by the Minister; the emphasis on the primacy of rural development and rural sustenance; and the detailed negotiations to try to get a breakthrough in the BSE crisis, vis-à-vis Northern Ireland and the European market. Last, but not least, there has been the huge and unparalleled 9·6% increase in the agriculture budget in this year’s Estimates — an increase regarded by the Ulster Farmers’ Union as a major breakthrough.
I do not believe that criticism was intended in the motion, but the wording may have indicated a lack of activity. In fact, the proactivity has been remarkable.
I forgot to mention that arable agrimonetary programme, to the tune of £700,000, has also been implemented. That again is very welcome.
Most of the contributions to the debate have addressed the terrible problems that affect the farming industry. All sectors of the industry have suffered a sequence of almost deathly body blows. As other Members have said, problems include the strength of sterling, the weakening of international markets and the loss of some of our traditional markets, from which it will be difficult to recover.
It is easy to examine the problems but difficult to suggest solutions. Each cost incurred in the food chain is another bite along the way, but farmers are not getting a fair wage from that price structure. We must adopt new mechanisms to ensure that the farmgate price is a greater proportion of the price we pay for produce across the counter. A farmer, like any other industrial worker or manufacturer, is entitled to a decent wage, and we must address this issue on that basis. That is particularly so, given that the cost of our electricity, fuel and transport is rapidly increasing because we are peripheral to the markets of north-western Europe and beyond.
Greater emphasis must be put on producing quality goods rather than on quantity. Some subsidy structures tend to support quantity rather than quality. However, in this day and age, it is quality that penetrates a market, not quality. The overemphasis on diversification as a panacea for farming ills is ill conceived and based on misplaced faith. Diversification can address a limited number of farmers’ problems, but that is not a blanket solution to the problem in rural communities.
We are now in a period of virtual trade war in Europe, with countries banning other countries’ beef amid fears of a further spread of BSE. It now appears that the United Kingdom is looking for a pan-European eradication programme in response to BSE. That will not increase the chances of success for our Minister and her Department as they try to penetrate the ban on account of our special circumstances. Our produce would have been quite marketable if only the crisis had not erupted once again.
As the Minister said in her report yesterday, the application for the removal of the BSE ban is on short- term hold at the moment. She was criticised for that, but farmers’ unions agree totally with the position that she has taken. They recognise that it is not the best time to make such an application and that, until the dust settles in this trade war, there is little point in trying to get a special deal for Northern Ireland’s beef.
Other Members touched on the matter of subsidy payments and the structures that would enable such payments to be made more rapidly and effectively than at present. The Minister dealt with that in response to a question, and I hope that that will resolve the problem.
One of the problems in farming, which if we put our hand on our hearts we will admit to, is the need for massive restructuring. Mr Savage, who moved the motion, and other Members have hinted at a possible means of restructuring. I fear that part of Mr Savage’s suggestion could give rise to a financiers’ and bankers’ paradise, but perhaps that could be restricted.
Farming incomes must be addressed as a matter of a social concern, separate from the question of farm production. We must treat farmers as the custodians of our countryside and give them the funding that they need to sustain our rural environment, not only for themselves but for us.
I am convinced of two particular requirements: the need to address the matter properly and the need for a structured social concern for the farmer, his family and the protection of the environment, which will give him a new source of income and support the countryside.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome this debate, and I congratulate the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development for moving the motion. I can identify with many of the comments that have been made across the Chamber by Members from a number of parties. The notable exception is Sinn Féin, which seems to be stuck in an all-Ireland time warp. That is not the answer to our problems. We need to get our heads out of that sandpit and look at our problems and at the practical measures that can be taken.
The debate comes at a crucial time. It is unfortunate that the Speaker took such a very narrow interpretation of Standing Order 15(3). A much fuller debate on the amendments that my party and the Alliance Party sought to put down would have been helpful. None the less, that is his ruling, and it will be raised in another place. Our party would have liked to amend the motion to give it more teeth because we must show the leadership that is required and give direction both to the industry and to the Department.
In spite of its best intentions, the Department will, by and large, ignore this debate. That is what Governments do. Governments listen to debates but essentially ignore them unless they are given firm direction and precise proposals, and in the absence of such precise proposals, which the amendments to the motion would have made, the Minister will be able to agree with many of the sentiments that are expressed in the Chamber while continuing with her Department’s policies.
The policies that she has pursued have not resolved the crisis within the industry, and her Department has to be face up to that. That is not a personal criticism; it is a reality, and that is why this debate is helpful. The industry and the Department must pull up their socks so that the industry can move in a new direction.
If the Department has difficulties in furthering the proposals, perhaps it is about time that the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee introduced a Bill to address those issues. I have already mentioned that to the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson. If the Department cannot or will not address them, we should introduce a Bill that contains the Members’ proposals on restructuring and other matters. We shall then see the colour of the Department’s money, and also the colour of party money. Will people put their money where their mouth is on those important matters?
Analysis is all well and good, and most commendable, but the industry in Northern Ireland requires a prescription. Because there is a crisis, we cannot allow the Department to continue with the policies that it has adopted. Everyone has said so. Even Members from the Minister’s party have accepted that there is a crisis. Therefore, we need a prescription, and it is essential that we prescribe in a helpful manner.
My party would like the Department to take three specific actions immediately. First, the import and sale of farm beef should be banned until our competitors are producing to the same rigorous standards as local producers. I noted that Mr Leslie enjoys eating Ulster produce and adheres strictly to an Ulster diet. I commend him and any other such discerning Member for that. I hope that Mount Charles ensures that it uses Ulster products in the Basement Restaurant, and I suggest that we ensure that our schools and colleges buy Ulster produce. That is essential to ensure that our produce be given every possible assistance.
The introduction of a farm restructuring scheme is also essential, as is the introduction of a single enhanced environment scheme. Several Members have referred to the task force report on European regulation. It is critical that that form a significant part of Government thinking in Northern Ireland. Such measures, taken together, would give the industry hope for a brighter future, and we should make every effort to give the industry that hope.
All our past efforts to tackle BSE have been in vain. We could not have done more, but the BSE storm that now rages across Europe means that all the efforts we made to ensure that our produce was the safest and most scrutinised have been in vain because we shall not achieve low-incidence BSE status this year, and possibly not next year either.
However, the Department has to look at other measures. To be masters of our farming destiny, we must take some control over shaping the industry in the next five to 10 years. Only by embarking on a strategic farm restructuring scheme that will address farming debt, farm retirement, farm size, new entrants, production and strategy shall we become the masters. If we slavishly implement a regulation-based industry, the crisis will only deepen. I appeal to the Minister to address the problem and not the symptoms.
We recently had a Budget that was hailed as a farmers’ Budget, but it gave a false impression. A figure of £6 million goes directly to in-house Department of Agriculture and Rural Development schemes, and £5million goes towards training, education and employment. An argument could be made that the Minister’s colleague, Dr Farren, should fork out some money for education and training if there is to be genuine cross- cutting by the Government. That way, more money could go into farming schemes.
Fishermen received absolutely nothing from the Budget. They have been sunk as a result of it. Their crisis continues.
I welcome what the Minister said yesterday about pig restructuring. However, will the Minister tell us about the small print, and what it will mean in pounds and pence for the farming community?
Finally, much has been said about rural proofing. Although I welcome the concept of rural proofing, it is rather vague. I hope that the Minister will tell us about the "whens", "hows" and "whos" of rural proofing. Perhaps we should move from rural proofing to farmer proofing, because that is the real issue. We wish to see rural development programmes that are farmer proof.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion and welcome the opportunity to debate it.
Mr Leslie stated that this is the third time we have debated agriculture, yet agriculture continues to be in decline. There is an unprecedented flight from the land. Traditional farmers travel from rural areas to Belfast to do labouring work as bricklayers, plasterers and carpenters because they cannot survive on the land from which they used to be able to make a living. As Mr Leslie said, sheep used to keep them and now they keep sheep.
The decline in farming has been in the offing for a long time. The BSE crisis points to the problem of concentrating on beef production alone. It has left farmers in a very weak position. Whatever happens in future with BSE, a culture is growing among young people of not eating meat, and for as long as the threat and fear of BSE continues, that growing anti-beef culture will become more prevalent in the younger population.
Ian Paisley Jnr is quite wrong when he says that farming does not have an all-Ireland dimension. I am making not a political point but the rational economic point that we live on one island and if we are looking for a market of five million people as opposed to one of one and a half million we must sell our produce to other parts of the island.
It is interesting that in the rest of Ireland one of the ways in which farmers have been able to earn an alternative income is by going into organic farming. In various areas in the west of Ireland FÁS has initiated schemes to enable farmers to learn about organic farming. Moreover, looking at the all-Ireland dimension, the rest of Ireland — the FreeState or the Twenty-six Counties if one likes — at the last count was importing around £280million of foodstuffs per year from England, Scotland, Wales and mainland Europe. It imports produce such as carrots and parsnips from Holland and other parts of the continent, as well as potatoes from Cyprus and elsewhere. A previously untried opening exists for farming to diversify.
The Minister should encourage farmers to find other means of generating income by using land that they do not traditionally use in this part of Ireland because of a dependence on beef production. The Minister should encourage that and give incentives to farmers to make better use of their land. Afforestation also needs to be looked at, especially on mountain farms. Grants are available, and those alternatives should be examined.
The planning issue arises again and again. Farmers are not trying to spot the landscape with unregulated dwellings. However, building houses is one way in which farmers can earn an income from land that is otherwise useless. House building can help farmers to survive on the land in the short term. The Minister should take up the issue with the Department of the Environment, look at in a structured way and, together with the Department of the Environment and the farmers, see where such planning applications could be granted.
The farming community should be encouraged to look at tourism and be given incentives to become involved with it. Tourism is one area that has a future in this part of Ireland. One can get involved without spending a great deal of money, yet it can provide an income and bring people to this part of Ireland who have stayed away in the past.
There has been a flight from the land. It is frightening in many ways to see those people who have no other way to earn an income, who are attached to the land, having to leave their farms to travel in the morning to places like Belfast, Lisburn and elsewhere to work on a building site. It is heart-rending in many ways for people to find themselves in that situation. I support the motion and I ask the Minister to be proactive in helping the farming community and the agriculture sector.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important subject. Agriculture is the backbone of Northern Ireland industry. It has been one of Northern Ireland’s principal industries for generations. Will Members stand idly by and allow our heritage to diminish? Our farming industry, and all that it represents, is slipping away from us through a lack of effort and financial support.
The report of the Better Regulation Task Force — ‘Environmental Regulations and Farmers’ — released on 15 November 2000, recognised the speed at which the United Kingdom Government implemented EU regulations compared with other EU countries. The United Kingdom Government has not been backward in coming forward to implement regulations at immense cost to our farmers.
Every sector in agriculture is in decline. I do not have to inform the Assembly of the facts and figures of each depressing commodity. We think of the pig farmers — those who have left the industry, and those who have struggled on. We think of the beef farmer and his harrowing life as a result of the ongoing BSE crisis. We think of the poultry farmer who finds it more difficult to squeeze out a profit and the dairy farmer who was treated undemocratically during the distribution of the additional milk quota. They all provide cause for concern.
Regrettably, we must realise that, at present, farming communities are heavily dependent on grant aid. Therefore, the Government must make payments on time to assist with cash flow difficulties and to minimise bank overdrafts and associated charges. They must apply for all agrifunding that may become available via the EU. Every effort must also be made to minimise the administration costs of agriculture grants and schemes.
All too often, financial aids for the agriculture industry are only "pain relievers". Real treatment is needed to improve the situation of Northern Ireland farmers. Measures are needed to put a real bottom in the agriculture industry. That would create a sound foundation for revival in the sector that would make the industry more profitable and provide a decent income for the farmer and his family.
The Government should engage in ongoing research instead of waiting for crisis situations, such as the present one, to arise. A vision group has been set up — I ask the Minister whether there is the need for such a group? Most farmers have a vision of the future. Why not ask them? Some people wonder what departmental officials have been doing while they have been using up any extra financial help received. Does the Minister have so little faith in the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, the Ulster Farmers’ Union, NIAPA and her departmental officials that a separate vision group is necessary? It is just more expense.
We should encourage our young people to become more involved in the agriculture industry. That would create a more viable industry that would contribute to the economic well-being and culture of Northern Ireland.
In January, I proposed to the Minister the implementation of a farm regeneration scheme that would encourage young people into farming and agriculture and would take the elderly farmer into retirement. The young farmer and the father, or farm owner, would form a partnership for five years. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and the EU, would fund the farm for the first few years. During that time, negotiations would begin for the farmer’s son or daughter to take over the farm with the help of low-interest loans from European banks. It would not be necessary to transfer the farm at its full market value. At the end of the take-over period, ownership would transfer to the young farmer. The older farmer would retire on the money that he received, and he could let the young person get on with the task of running the farm. If that scheme were implemented, we would have new generations of farmers for a new millennium, full of enthusiasm and new ideas for a brighter agriculture industry for Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately, the reply that I received from the Minister supported my belief that the Department is negative when it comes to changing policies or pursuing new ideas for the betterment of Northern Ireland farmers. Departmental officials are unwilling to rock the boat. A vision group has been introduced that thinks along similar lines as those officials. Similarly, the Minister and the Department are not listening to the Agriculture Committee or farmers, nor are they introducing new ideas.
12.00

Mr John Dallat: I support the motion, but I cannot resist saying that it would have been nice if more Members had attended for the debate. I understand that they are involved in other important aspects of Assembly work, but I cannot help thinking that had the motion been on flags we would have had a packed House.
I welcome the debate and wish to contribute positively to it, but at this stage it is clear to me that crisis management is not the answer to our problems. While recognising the need to support and maintain the industry in the short term, we need a long-term strategy to enable farmers and the industry as a whole to survive and thrive. We must enable farmers to manage those changes that are beyond our control and turn them to their advantage.
As the Programme for Government clearly shows, local Ministers responding to local needs can make a difference — and are doing so. The commitment to the rural proofing of Government policies — already referred to several times — and to the setting up of an Executive working group to oversee its implementation are proof of the importance that the Executive place on maintaining a vibrant rural community. That should be welcomed by all in the House.
Tackling inequality in our society has been, and must continue to be, a priority for the Assembly. I welcome the decision to allocate the additional milk quota progressively to those who would benefit most — the smaller farmers. No one can doubt the hardship farming families face. Therefore, I welcome any measure to improve the way that farmers relate to Government, especially the Minister’s decision to prepare a protocol, for publication during 2001, that will provide a comprehensive and clear explanation to farmers of how their subsidy claims will be handled. I also welcome yesterday’s announcement on the pig industry restructuring scheme and congratulate the Minister on her successful lobbying.
Some things are beyond our control. For example, the Assembly cannot do anything about the strength of sterling except to highlight its impact on the agriculture industry. The United Kingdom opt-out from the euro is hitting our farmers harder than most. The SDLP has never believed in the opt-out, and today I call on the British Government to face down the Conservative Euro-sceptics and bring the United Kingdom into the euro as soon as possible.
Where we have the power to act, we should do our best, as I believe we are. The Assembly has a part to play in enabling change and supporting the industry through that change. We need to be responsible in our approach. The agriculture industry’s problems are our collective problems, so let us remember that it does not exist in isolation. Agriculture and rural development are integral parts of the rural community, and when we speak of agriculture we must speak of a holistic approach to the special needs of rural dwellers.
Government Departments must develop joined-up government that involves planning, the environment, agriculture, rural tourism and all the support services that a rural community needs to survive. Rural dwellers in general must understand that the plight of the farmer is also their plight. Business people in rural towns know only too well, and to their cost, that when the agriculture industry is in trouble the entire rural economy is in crisis. Unfortunately, that is not always fully appreciated by everyone, and it must be understood.
I repeat that we have, for the first time, our own Agriculture Minister. She has shown a willingness to listen to farmers and understand the current crisis. She has gone to the ends of the earth to tell our story, and she deserves our support. Farmers expect us to sing from the same hymn sheet. They will not thank us for making their plight an excuse for political point-scoring. They expect us to approach their difficulties with maturity and responsibility, and I hope that we shall. There has been an indication in the Assembly this morning that we shall do so.
Let the message go out from the Assembly that all parties are united in their determination to stand by the farming industry in its hour of need. Do not let this debate be a one-day wonder, with speeches written for the sound bites and then filed away to be dusted down later, perhaps at the time of an election.
Let the work continue day and daily. That is how the Minister deals with the problem, and we can do no better than support her — not only in the interests of the farmers, but of everyone in rural communities. As I have said, the crisis is affecting everyone, not only the farmers.

Mr Gardiner Kane: I welcome this debate. The Assembly could not fail to recognise the difficulties facing agriculture, nor, indeed, its importance to the economy. However, the farmers wonder if the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has yet realised that. In the space of one year, there are 2,500 fewer farmers, 7% fewer lamb producers and inestimably fewer pig producers. How do we begin to estimate the impact on the rural economy?
The House must be mindful of the source of funding for rural development modulation. Many farmers must wonder when there is to be a return on the moneys taken from their premiums. Rural development policies now appear to have to satisfy the interests of more than the farmer. Rural development, once heralded as the second pillar of agriculture, is now perceived to have undergone a change of emphasis. Rural development and agriculture have to some extent diverged, with little overlap, and agriculture is the loser.
Changes in funding for agriculture seem to be limited to scant funding for some of the vision group’s recommendations. Other aspects of indirect funding for the industry, such as IT literacy, would be both welcome and valuable in a vibrant economic agricultural environment. To offer such training skills and technology upgrading, while disregarding the plight of the industry, is like issuing new lamps to miners after the pits have closed.
With regard to targeting social need (TSN), the state of farming throughout the length and breadth of this Province dictates that if that novel catchphrase is to mean anything, there must be an acceptance of the social and, more importantly, economic needs of the farming community. Are pig farmers no longer part of that society? It seems not, since they are still waiting for assistance. Are the beef and sheep farmers included less in the social make-up, since they seem to have been abandoned as prey to the processors? Are the dairy farmers, with their valueless Holstein bull calves, any less worthy of being targeted? How much in need must the farmer be for him to be targeted as being in need of the Department’s assistance?
What is increasingly at play here is a Department with a singular role of implementing European policies, with no regard for the regional requirements of the industry that it is supposed to serve. The common agricultural policy (CAP) is supposed to be the bible of agriculture, its policies absolute. Given that, and disregarding the fact that agriculture may never recover as a consequence, can someone explain why we require a Department of Agriculture? If the Department’s function is to enforce EU policy without question, while the rest of Europe cherry- picks the rules, and our industry continues to crumble as a result, it is nothing more than an exercise in job creation.
Farmers are in no mood to accept a continued denial of their needs or of the burden of demands placed upon them as acceptable practice simply because some Eurocrat says so. I support the motion.

Mr Derek Hussey: In supporting my Colleague, I want at the outset to emphasise the Ulster Unionist Party’s commitment to Northern Ireland’s farmers.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Sir. There was something wrong with the Clocks when the Member was speaking. When he finished, both clocks read around eight minutes.

Sir John Gorman: My clock showed that the Member did not use his full time.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: That is correct. When the Member looked up and saw eight minutes on the clock, that put him off his stride.

Sir John Gorman: We shall start at zero this time and see how it goes.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: However, the clock should be right, and it was wrong. Even the Clerk laughed to me. He smiled over to me when I was looking at the clock, for he knew that it was wrong. The Member should have been told that the clock was wrong and that he still had time to speak. That is a fair point, and it needs to be accepted by the Chair.

Sir John Gorman: It is a fair point. Does MrKane want another couple of minutes?

Mr Gardiner Kane: No, thank you.

Sir John Gorman: Very well. Thank you, DrPaisley, for drawing the matter to my attention.

Mr Derek Hussey: Indeed, I noticed that myself. If it goes to eight, I will not mind.
I support my Colleague MrSavage’s motion. I wish to emphasise the Ulster Unionist Party’s commitment to Northern Ireland’s farmers — a commitment that I am sure every party in the Assembly has. The scale and scope of the crisis — I use that word again — in agriculture require the sort of initiative and imaginative new measures to which MrSavage referred.
As far as I am concerned, the most devastating statistic quoted was that 46% of Northern Ireland farmers have an income of less than zero. Nearly half of our farmers are not only earning nothing, but losing substantial amounts of money. MrSavage said that debts are owed to the banks and to the feed suppliers, and MrDouglas referred to the underlying causes.
This is an important debate. Although I am not a farmer, I realise that people in the farming community will be watching us closely today. MrDallat is correct. We are not only talking about farmers; we are talking about the entire rural economy. When the farmers sneeze, the rural businesses catch a bad dose of flu. We do not know yet if we are prepared for that.
The most recent statistical survey by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development showed the obvious: farm incomes are at their lowest level for 20years. The Assembly recognises that farmers are hard-working people, and it would be wrong for us not to address that state of affairs.
No matter how sophisticated our economy becomes, and no matter how many high-tech industries are attracted to our shores, I cannot see any economy thriving that does not jealously protect its primary means of food production. Here, I am in agreement with DrPaisley. It is time that the rest of Europe was forced to catch up with the animal health and welfare standards that exist in this part of the United Kingdom.
The Haskins report has highlighted the problems that need to be addressed. MrLeslie mentioned the expansion of the EU and the increase of competition. It is fair that those countries that enter the EU should attain the same standards of animal health and welfare that we have. It was interesting to hear from MrSavage that as many as 84,000 are employed in the agrifood sector, much fewer than the number employed in the manufacturing sector.
To some extent, the true size of the agrifood sector has been disguised and obscured by the way in which official statistics are presented. In section 2, pages10 and 11 of the document ‘Labour Market Bulletin’, issued by the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, only four broad economic sectors are categorised: manufacturing, construction, services and other. "Other" is described as including agriculture, forestry, mining, quarrying, electricity, gas and water supply. However, "other", which is deemed to include agriculture, covers only 20,750 jobs — a total of 3·3% of the workforce. That clearly cannot be the case if agriculture is included. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s figures are specific and, to my knowledge, accurate. Table 2.14 on page19 of the latest Department of Agriculture and Rural Development document, ‘Statistical Review of Northern Ireland Agriculture 1999’, shows that 59,251 people are employed on farms. Of those, 37,609 are full-time workers, 7,034 are farmers’ wives — and nobody in the House should dare state that farmers’ wives do not work on farms — and 14,608 are part-time or casual employees.
The discrepancy between the total of 59,251 in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s figures — 9% of the workforce — and the total of fewer than 20,750 in the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment figures cannot be explained by hiding the food production figures in the manufacturing total. Food production employs 19,490. In any case, it is known that 59,000-plus are employed on farms, and that is supposed to be included in the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment’s figures. There is clearly a discrepancy, and I would like the two Ministers involved to sort it out, or at least explain it. MrFord referred to joined-up government — perhaps we could all use the same statistics.
The method of gathering statistics may have much to do with remote and unaccountable Government under direct rule. We now have an opportunity to address the democratic deficit. As MrBradley said, the UK Government have much to answer for. At the very least, we should expect a uniform statistical base from which to work. I am worried that the gathering of Government statistics has, to some degree, disguised the extent of the agriculture problem and the relative importance of the agrifood sector in the economy.
MrSavage’s reference to a new deal for farmers is timely. The scale and imagination of his adaptation of Danish agriculture law and the French agriculture system to Northern Ireland’s situation is required. Perhaps the Minister would care to investigate that further with Mr Savage, the Ulster Unionist’s agriculture team and others.
I regret that there was no opportunity to put down amendments during the debate.

Sir John Gorman: The Member’s time is up.

Mr Derek Hussey: If I may conclude — there was a wee bit of disruption at the beginning, MrDeputySpeaker.
In order to save the livelihoods of our farmers, agriculture reform and the restructuring required to assist the new deal should be at the heart of the Executive’s and the Assembly’s agendas.

Mr Joe Byrne: Again, as someone who represents a rural constituency, I am aware of the farming sector’s current plight, and I support MrSavage’s motion. When I first read it, I was concerned that there might have been some implicit criticism of the Minister. It is fair to say that MinisterRodgers has given a strong lead while trying to represent farmers’ concerns and the problems that they currently face in Northern Ireland.
It is true that this is the biggest crisis in farming since the 1930s. I have never heard of farming families experiencing so many economic difficulties.
It is a human tragedy that impacts on us all. Many provincial towns depend largely on the economic activity generated by farming and, as a result, are currently experiencing local recessions.
The Northern Ireland regional economy is more dependent on the agrisector than is any other UK region. In fact, until the BSE crisis, we consumed only 20% of our total beef production. We depend largely on an export market. I say to the Euro-sceptics that Northern Ireland agriculture has done extremely well out of the European Economic Community since 1973. I remember when we joined in 1973. Dr Sicco Mansholt was the Agriculture Commissioner at the time. The farming community in Northern Ireland greatly benefited from the higher guaranteed prices that were on offer.
Unfortunately, the volume production objective of the European Community’s agriculture policy probably created the current difficulties that we now experience. When we had high guaranteed prices, the objective of everyone in farming was to increase production and we reached a point where there was overproduction in the European Community.
We are now reassessing what the future objectives should be for agriculture, given that there is likely to be European Union expansion to the east, and also because of current food safety difficulties. Overproduction led to practices that did not enhance the image of beef production.
Agenda 2000 has offered a chance to reappraise the entire objectives of farming, and a greater balance must be struck between volume production and quality production. I totally agree with my Colleague, MrMcGrady. We must get into value-added quality production. We have nine meat plants in Northern Ireland, but we all remember when their output was simply what I call "boxed beef". We were quite happy for them to export it to the rest of Europe and to the Middle East, because the meat processors enjoyed a massive export grant at that time.
That no longer exists. However, Northern Ireland does have natural advantages in the production of beef and milk, and those need to be exploited in the future. That is why it is important that a long-term strategic review of our agriculture industry be conducted. The Minister is to be commended for setting up an agriculture vision group to examine that.
I agree with my Colleagues that short-term financial difficulties cause the greatest problem for our pig, sheep and beef farmers. We are all aware of pig producers who are selling pigs at less than what it cost to produce them. That is causing great financial hardship and a debt crisis in our farming communities. It is well documented that the Northern Ireland farming sector currently has debts of £500 million.
The Minister and her Department are limited in what they can do. We have been in a highly regulated market for a long time. We greatly enjoyed it when there were high guaranteed prices. We cannot really go along with a pure free-market system, because the free-market world prices are much less than, for example, the higher guaranteed prices that we currently get for milk. Our milk prices are about 25% less now than what they were four years ago, but at least the milk farmer is getting a cheque.
The people whom I feel really sorry for are the pig and beef farmers, because they no longer receive a guaranteed price. They are suffering the reality of depressed markets. We thought that we were beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel in relation to our BSE-free status, and the Minister was lobbying strongly for it. The crisis hitting continental Europe that Dr Paisley mentioned is now causing massive alarm and great difficulty, especially for our beef exporters.
It is important that the Assembly address the crisis in a mature and sensible manner. I have not had as much representation on any other issue in the past two years than I have had from farming families on this one. Farmers’ wives have telephoned me late at night to tell me about their husbands’ plights. In one case, a farmer’s wife told me that she was so worried about her husband that she feared for his life. I also know of a pig farmer in Castlederg who, 12 months ago, was experiencing a £2,000 a week loss in his pig production. He was so heavily involved that he could not get out. That is the difficulty faced by many people currently involved in farming.

Rev William McCrea: No one can overstate the seriousness of the situation faced by a vast portion of our population. Coming from a rural community and a farming background, I know much of the pain and the anguish that is suffered, not only by the farmers but by their families. Many of the farmers’ wives and children have been going through much of the pain along with the farming husband. Farming is in crisis. The rural community and rural economy is being affected by that crisis, and the shops in rural towns are being gravely hurt. The Assembly, and the Minister in particular, needs to look carefully at the situation and do something to alleviate the suffering.
Members may read from carefully prepared scripts — some well, some badly — but reality is greater than any script. People are having to endure an intolerable burden, and it is wrong that they should be allowed to continue to do so. They get more into debt every day and with it comes hopelessness. The community is wondering what hope the Minister and the Assembly can give it.
There have been meetings with countless delegations and a multiplicity of words spoken about the dilemma. However, it appears that the picture is getting darker and darker. Promises are made, but those neither pay the bills, nor settle the account with the bank.
Naturally, people look for a scapegoat. On many occasions I have heard departmental officials say "Minister, you cannot". Will there ever come a day when an official can say "Minister, you can"? It appears that the Ministers "cannot" because Europe will not allow them.
Some members of the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development’s party, the SDLP, have been great in their praise for the European Community. They should go down on to the farms; there is little to praise the European Community for there. Many of the regulations that are putting the farmers into debt — and almost into mental homes — are made by the European Community.
It appears that the rest of Europe may drive a coach and horses through the regulations, yet they are considered the good Europeans. However, those in Britain are looked upon as the bad Europeans, yet they read the small print carefully.
Previous Ministers have said that if the rest of Europe does that, they will have to be penalised, but we shall not act illegally in the face of any legislation that comes from Europe.
Meanwhile, we have farmers going bankrupt while the rest of Europe does not adhere to the regulations, which they are a party in making. Intolerable burdens are being placed on the farmer who does not have the money and who is being driven deeper into despair.
I recently met with the Minister and the pig farmers. The question is: do pig farmers have a future? The Minister will say that she cannot answer that. I spoke to pig farmers a few nights ago. They were told by one of the leading processing groups that things will be great in the new year. They are dangling a carrot in front of farmers’ eyes and giving them hope that the tide will turn. The sad reality is that that processor may not even be in the Province in the new year. That is how we deal with situations in the Province.
Europe was no friend to the beef farmer. I hope that the SDLP can tell us what a good friend Europe was to it, but let it be remembered that it was the European countries that tried to ride on the back of the BSE crisis in trying to take the markets away from the Ulster farmer. Yet the Ulster farmer’s beef was second to none. Europe was willing to use the pain and anguish that many farmers were going through.
We have heard buzzwords such as "diversify" — diversify into what? Do we suggest that all farmers can be tourist-driven and that they all open up their houses as bed-and-breakfasts? It is so easy to say "diversify", but the Department owes it to the community to tell people where, how, and into what they should diversify.
What hope has any young person who enters the farming industry? Young people have to attracted into the industry and retained, but there has to be a properly funded restructuring scheme. It is no good to use the buzzwords "restructuring scheme" — farmers need to know what that means, how it will be done, and how they will be paid. How will we get the elderly farmer to retire with a proper payment, and encourage young people into the industry? Those are the problems — the Assembly and the Minister must come up with the answers.
The sitting was suspended at 12.33 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [MrMcClelland] in the Chair) —

Mr Edwin Poots: The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development’s role is not an easy one. Although I always try to ask her difficult questions to extract information from the Department, I recognise that there was a crisis in the industry when she took on the position.
Nonetheless, the Minister is responsible for leading the way. Her Department must come up with innovative and practical ways to help move farming away from the current crisis. More effort should be made to achieve profitable production, rather than administration. Will the Minister tell me, either today or at a later date, how many people currently work in the Department and how many worked there in 1995, before the agricultural crisis came about? That is a practical question, because the number of farmers has been significantly reduced in that period.
The current agriculture budget is £190 million, yet farmers are taking home £22 per week on average. Why does it cost so much to administer agriculture when the industry makes so little profit? The £22 per week figure is inaccurate because those farmers who are in profit, mainly in the dairy industry, disguise the losses being made by those who have had to take jobs outside farming to keep the farm going.
The Minister must look at the current regulations being applied to farming, which must be one of the most regulated industries in the United Kingdom. Certainly, the UK is more assiduous at applying the regulations than other European countries. That point has been well made today.
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a point made in the Better Regulation Task Force’s report. Supermarkets and Government Departments are both running quality assurance schemes, and there is a doubling-up of costs in that area. Farmers have to answer to the Livestock and Meat Commission (LMC) on one hand and to the supermarkets that buy their produce on the other. We should look at how best use could be made of those resources and how a scheme could be adopted that supermarkets would support. That should not only be a marketing mechanism for supermarkets, but it should reward the farmers for the quality of their produce.
The report also recommends that we reduce record- keeping. That is interesting. For a number of years, there has been pressure to increase record-keeping. Much of that has been done in the name of BSE and of to achieve low-incidence BSE status. However, that has not been achieved, and the Minister has said that she will not attempt to achieve it in the immediate future. Not enough is being done to lift the BSE ban on Northern Ireland produce. We are a low-incidence country. We currently apply all the regulations that Europe is now thinking about applying. Northern Ireland produce is of the highest standard possible, and I believe that we have an irrefutable case to get the ban lifted.
A new scheme is being introduced to test animals aged over 30 months to see whether they have BSE, and we should use that as further leverage to get ourselves back into the market by being allowed to slaughter animals over that age. That is a great hardship to farmers, as many of them have perfectly good beef animals. Those may not be ready when the time comes for them to be slaughtered, which means that the farmers lose a great deal of money. However, farmers sometimes find it hard to keep up with the dates, and they may let animals simply run out of time. A beast aged, for example, 29 months and 30 days may be fine, yet two days later it could be deemed unfit for human consumption. That is nonsense, especially when there is a test that would clear the beast and decide whether it is fit for human consumption.
I submitted a written question to the Minister on the Sub-Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (SPARD), and I thank her for her answer. We are often told that we cannot put money for farming into different schemes because of Europe. The Minister said in her letter that another SPARD scheme would not contravene European regulations.
SPARD was discontinued in 1995, and farmers’ places are beginning to become run down due to lack of money. A reintroduction of a SPARD or similar-type scheme — perhaps the emphasis could be on environmental and animal welfare issues — would help farmers maintain their properties in the proper way.
The Department introduced planning regulations for people requiring farm labourers’ dwellings. Someone who required a farm labourers’ dwelling would need to have 250 cows to qualify. That is nonsense, and it needs to be looked at by the Department. That is not in the legislation; it is merely departmental policy, and I think the Minister could do something useful there. Will the Minister look at the basis for deciding the sheep annual premium and, if she can, along with other Ministers, help persuade the European Union to do it on a regional rather than a Europe-wide basis?
Every farmer in the Province is eligible for TSN. The crisis has bitten everybody from the arable farmer in the east of the Province to the hill farmer in the Sperrins.

Mr Jim Shannon: I wish to support my Colleague’s comments. Farming is of paramount importance to the Province. I say so not because I represent the large rural area of Strangford but because each one of us who lives here depends on the farmer’s produce for the food that he or she eats. Whether we live in an urban or a rural part of the Province, we are all affected. Agriculture is the single biggest job creator in the Province’s. We recognise that fact, and, although there has been a downturn in the number of jobs, we hope that that will go the other way soon. However, that will happen only if the Government and the Department provide the correct level of support and are effective in doing their best for the farming economy. Many are asking — and this is a question that is on the lips of many farmers whom I speak to in my constituency — what strategy has the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development developed. Does it have a strategy to take agriculture out of the stormy waters that it is in and steer it into calmer ones? Farmers have been burdened with many regulations; they have heard many words, but they have nothing practical they can touch. That causes them concern.
The Minister recently announced that extra money had been allocated in the budget. Some have asked where that extra money will go. Will it go into administration? If it does, then the industry will have lost its way. It should go directly to the coalface — or to the "farmface", in this case — to improve the agriculture industry.
Every one of us can collate and record the downturn in the agriculture industry. In my constituency, the downturn has been significant and worrying. Many jobs have been lost, and some sectors of the rural economy have been almost decimated. There has been a radical change in the numbers involved in the poultry industry and the pig sector. Both have almost been wiped out. There is one pig farmer left in the entire Strangford constituency where there used to be 12 not all that long ago. One Member mentioned the number of pig farmers that have left the business. Once there were more than 2,000, whereas now there are just more than 900. If that does not tell the story of the pig industry, nothing will.
Hen houses and poultry businesses across the Ards Peninsula and Ards town are lying empty today. Farmers were told, "Get into the poultry industry. Your future will be made for you." But what has happened? They have lost a fortune. The poultry industry and the pig sector have seen considerable changes that have been particularly marked in my area. Other sectors have also witnessed changes: beef, sheep, vegetables and grain. Latterly, even the dairy sector is feeling the pinch.
The ripples have touched the entire economy, and everyone is affected. Some shops have closed, while others are being run on a smaller scale — all because the farming community no longer has the spending power that it once had. One Member mentioned the products that we eat in the restaurants here. I put that question to the Assembly Commission, and Mount Charles Catering Ltd confirmed yesterday that it sources all its products from Northern Ireland and that 65% of the products we eat here come from Northern Ireland. That is a clear indication that we are setting an example, as is Mount Charles.
I ask the Minister to take planning issues on board. They are a big problem in my constituency and something I am involved in every other week. I would like to see relaxation in the planning rules and regulations, specifically for farmers’ sons and daughters. I find it particularly frustrating that when they work a large number of man hours, which many of them do, that is not sufficient to warrant the building of a house. By setting the level so high, many people are left out of the equation. Moreover, there is no provision in the planning rules and regulations for those who may not be directly involved in farming but who have an alternative job; for example, in the Civil Service. I would like that to be taken on board as well.
We are all aware of the need to restructure and modernise farming. However, that will be achieved only by the establishment of a meaningful and properly funded restructuring scheme. To achieve that, we need to attract young people to the industry, and we need to retain them. We also need an incentive — or a retirement package — for the older generation of farmers. The EU believes that those objectives can be delivered. It is unfortunate that the United Kingdom, on which we are focusing, and Holland are two of the few countries that have not adopted that incentive.
I would also like to make a quick point about the protection and enhancement of the environment. That is a key concern for us all, but farmers have a significant role to play. Indeed, they have already played that role in that they are the custodians of the countryside. Some sort of capital grant element would help that sector. That would give farmers another way of trying to escape from their problems. A wider environmental scheme can deliver greater farmer participation, but it will require cross-departmental funding. Can the Minister tell us how that system will work? If those measures are pursued, the agriculture industry can, like a phoenix, rise from the ashes. The industry can create wealth for the community, which will restore confidence and provide hope for the future.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The motion calls on the Assembly to recognise the importance of the agriculture industry to Northern Ireland, and the difficulties that it has recently experienced and continues to face. We are all aware of the problems that have beset the industry. There was the onset of the BSE crisis in 1996, followed by the appreciation of sterling against the ecu, and latterly the euro — a problem that was compounded by imbalances in the global market. The resurgence of the BSE crisis is another problem with which we shall have to deal. As yet, we do not know the full extent of the direct or indirect effects that it could have. Farmers in Northern Ireland have been powerless to influence any of those events, and the toll on farmers, their families and the rural community has been heavy.
I do not, however, accept the suggestion that my Department or I have failed to take a proactive approach to furthering the industry’s interests. In a properly functioning and mature democracy, it is right and proper that the actions of a Minister, and those of his or her Department, be closely scrutinised by elected representatives. Ministers should be taken to task, if genuine failings are identified. However, no such failings have been identified in this debate.
I have introduced several initiatives in the past year, and they illustrate how I am being proactive and making progress in delivering real benefits to Northern Ireland. I would also like to foster a better understanding of the role and aims of my Department. Soon after I took up my ministerial portfolio, I decided to establish a group of industry experts to examine the agrifood industry, identify the obstacles and opportunities that lay ahead, develop a vision for the development of the industry and make recommendations as to how that would be achieved. Mr Shannon spoke about the need for a strategy. That is precisely what the vision group that I set up was for — to provide me with a road map or strategy.
Work is now at an advanced stage. The group will deliver its final report to me by the end of February 2001. However, the purpose of the exercise is not simply to provide me with a nice glossy report that I can display as evidence of my foresight or as justification of what I have already done. On the contrary, it will pave the way for an action plan that will move the industry forward on its own agenda — in close partnership with Government — towards the achievement of common goals.
One Member suggested that the vision exercise was a costly one; it is not. The members of the group have given up their time voluntarily. The group is not designed to replace the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee or the Assembly. Its purpose is to provide me with additional advice from people in the industry who possess a wealth of experience and expertise. Given the recent upheavals and difficulties, the industry needs a lead as never before, and I am determined to ensure that it has it.
Another of my early initiatives was my decision to proceed with the case in favour of relaxing the export restrictions on Northern Ireland beef. I do not need to reiterate my commitment to that. At yesterday’s special Council of Ministers meetings in Brussels, a package of measures was agreed that will help the EU beef market. All member states must now control the consumption of beef from animals aged over 30 months and stop the feeding of meat-and-bone meal to ruminants. The list of specified risk materials will be extended. As well as protecting the public at large, the measures will level out the playing field for the UK and other member states, and will help to preserve consumer confidence in EU beef. There will also be as yet unspecified measures taken to cushion beef producers against the financial impact. The Council also agreed possible concessions for very low-incidence countries, such as Finland, and the resumption of exports by Portugal.
Needless to say, I shall watch those developments with interest, in case they read across to Northern Ireland. We are all well aware of the impact that the weakness of the euro has on farmers. That matter can only be dealt with via the mechanism of agrimoney compensation. In February I began a debate with other UK Agriculture Ministers that led to the March agriculture summit announcement of additional compensation that was worth more than £8 million to Northern Ireland livestock producers. I, again, pushed for compensation earlier this autumn, which led to the announcement of additional compensation for our arable producers.
I welcome the support of Mr Leslie and Mr McGrady for my efforts in that respect, and I assure the House that I shall keep up the pressure for further compensation when it becomes available. Without such a proactive approach, acting in concert with Agriculture Ministers from other devolved Administrations, and with the full support of the unions, I very much doubt whether any such money would have been forthcoming.
However, several Members have indicated that although those cash injections are absolutely vital to help the industry weather its current difficulties, we simply cannot build the future of our industry on emergency cash handouts — Mr Armstrong has termed them "pain relievers" — or by pursuing short-term initiatives that divert us from our true objectives and perhaps even create long-term damage for the sake of short-term expediency. I also recognise, as Mr Byrne pointed out, the existence of the short-term difficulties, and I have already referred to some of the actions that I have taken to tackle those difficulties.
An important example of how we lay the foundations for moving forward is provided by our recently approved rural development regulation plan, which is worth some £266 million between 2000 and 2006. If, as Mr Kane suggested, I had slavishly implemented EU policy with no regard for the local farming industries, the originally proposed less-favoured area (LFA) scheme would have been very different from the one with which we ended up. Together with other UK Ministers and Joe Walsh in the Republic, we succeeded in changing the EU Commission’s narrow approach to LFA support. I was also able to secure an additional £32 million over the next few years from the Treasury for that support programme, compared to February’s original proposals.
The rural development regulation plan contains more than just the LFA support scheme. The additional funding secured for the agrienvironment and forestry elements will also be welcomed by farmers and environmentalists. There are increasing market opportunities for organic produce, and I note that Mr John Kelly specifically mentioned that point. The significantly enhanced resources provided under the organic farming scheme will encourage the development of a vibrant organic sector in Northern Ireland and will enable local producers to exploit those opportunities. To underpin the development, I have commissioned a strategic study to identify the nature and scale of the opportunities open to the Northern Ireland organic sector. That will lead to a development plan to enable the Northern Ireland organic sector to realise its full potential.
Organic farming will also deliver environmental benefits, as will the expanded countryside management scheme, which aims to improve biodiversity, the water quality of rivers and lakes, and the management of landscape and heritage features. Those are important goals in their own right, but I am sure that the processing industry’s marketing people will not be slow to exploit the advantages.
Another area in which we are planning for our future is represented by our proposals under the transitional Objective 1 and Peace II programmes. We seek to ensure that we derive maximum benefit from European funding and deliver a balanced package of measures, with benefits for agriculture, fisheries, forestry and tourism. Together, those measures will benefit the wider rural community, as was mentioned by several Members.
Turning to measures that I have been pursuing with the resources available to me from the Northern Ireland block, the Agenda for Government, and the recently announced Budget proposals, I have been able to bid for additional funds to initiate several important and innovative programmes.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has been at the forefront in training farmers in information and computer technology (ICT), and its effective use in the farm business. I have secured funding to enable the Department, working in association with the industry, to develop a portal site specifically for farmers and growers. That will provide on-line access to information and learning packages that will assist farmers in running their businesses more efficiently and profitably.
In a unique initiative to enhance farmer access to ICT facilities, open-access computers are being provided at sites across Northern Ireland, as agreed with farming representative bodies. We hope to have the first of those in operation early next year. I note that Mr Kane has criticised the initiative, but it would be unfair to deprive our farmers of access to the new technology that plays an increasingly important part in our lives. I welcome Mr Ford’s support for the initiative.
I have also been able to secure substantial additional funds to help the beef sector tackle the reduction in carcass quality that has become an increasing problem in recent years. That problem has been recognised by several Members during the debate. Given that considerable investment, I shall consult the industry on how best to achieve the significant improvement that is necessary.
The agriculture industry has particular problems in controlling potential pollution arising from farm waste, and it has lobbied for a capital grant scheme to provide the investment necessary to tackle the problem. Some Members, including Dr Paisley, referred to a need for an environmental capital grant scheme. I was pleased to secure funding for a pilot farm-waste management scheme in the October Agenda for Government. That pilot scheme will target the catchment areas of those rivers and lakes with the greatest farming-related water quality problems. The scheme aims to reduce the incidence of farm-point sourced pollution, and to provide farmers with grant assistance for the repair of silos, slurry stores, and the separation of clean and dirty water. That is an important initiative, and if the pilot scheme proves successful I hope to secure additional funds to enable the programme to be extended to other catchment areas.
Several Members raised the issues of the restructuring of the industry, early retirement and the encouragement of new entrants into the industry. Many Members will be aware that I recently commissioned research into the merits, both economic and social, of an early retirement scheme and a new entrants scheme. Particular reference was made to the experience of such schemes in other member states. Clearly such schemes have considerable resource implications. There are different opinions on their effectiveness and feasibility. The purpose of the research is to provide me with better information in order to make an informed decision on how to best use the money for the long-term benefit of the industry. I shall consult all stakeholders before taking any decision.
Young people entering the industry must have the technical and business management skills to compete globally. They require the best of education and training, coupled with relevant practical experience. It is for that reason that the Department of Agriculture has for many years been at the forefront of innovative education and training provision, linked closely to the industry’s needs.
Several Members spoke about the plight of pig farmers. I have already explained to the Assembly some of the steps that I have taken to help to improve, for example, carcass confirmation and marketing. I have also had meetings with the commercial interests and have encouraged people to source local produce.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I have just heard alarming news about the funds for outgoers and ingoers in the pig industry that were to come to £66 million. Because the Treasury did not hand out £26 million of that money, there is now an argument in the Treasury and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as to whether the United Kingdom overall is to get not £66 million, but £40 million.
Is the Minister going to press — against the wishes of the Minister in England, but not against the wishes of the Agriculture Ministers in Scotland and Wales — that that money be regionalised so that she and the House will have an input into the way that it is spent?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Dr Paisley for that information. I cannot comment on something that is, as the Member says, hot off the press. I presume that it is still subject to negotiation, and I assure the Member that I, along with my officials, will press for the full amount.
As I have already said, I was pleased to be able to announce yesterday that, at long last, we have received EU permission to proceed with the first stage of the pig industry restructuring scheme. Dr Paisley asked about the aid that we shall give those still involved in pig production. I expect the Commission to approve the aid scheme for those producers on 13 December and for the scheme to open soon after that, at least by the beginning of next year. EU delays in approving that have been extremely frustrating, both to the industry and to me, and I am pleased that the lobbying that I urged the UK Agriculture Minister, Nick Brown, to undertake with the Commission has finally paid off. We shall finally be able to restructure the industry and develop it.
I hope that I have been able to illustrate the range of action that I taken in the past year. That has included long-term strategic planning, medium-term programme planning and short-term financial assistance for farmers. Those measures have included provision for investment in training and education, capital investment initiatives to promote new technology, initiatives on product quality and animal disease control, marketing and promotion, and, of course, special assistance for the pig sector.
I am confident that I am doing as much as anyone else in my position could do to further the interests of the agriculture industry within the legal and policy framework under which I must operate. Moreover, I assure the House that I shall continue to do all that I can, as a Minister and member of the Executive Committee, to further the interests of the agrifood industry. I hope that I shall receive broad cross-party support for the important work that needs to be done.
I welcome the constructive tone of the debate. It has shown a clear understanding of the issues, as well as Members’ determination to tackle the problems. That is local democracy at work. It is a welcome development that local people understand the needs of their farmers and want to work in partnership to deal with the issues. If we have a genuine interest in the future of the agrifood industry and the wider rural society, we have a duty to work together in partnership with the industry to secure its future well-being. That is visible in the efforts that we have made to address the industry’s difficulties.
My Department and I are always ready to pursue opportunities that will deliver genuine benefits to the industry. We have pursued a wide range of initiatives in the past 12 months. However, I am not prepared to tie up my Department’s limited resources in the pursuit of the unworkable, the unaffordable, the unlawful or sometimes the downright fanciful. There is a clear difference between being proactive and aimlessly chasing after ghosts and shadows. I know the difference.
I have heard today, not for the first time, vague accusations about what other member states are doing for their producers. I have heard cries of, "Why can’t we do the same?" We all work under the same common agricultural policy, which strictly governs what we can and cannot do. If anyone breaks the rules, someone will cry foul and there will always be serious consequences. I am not prepared to play a dangerous game with the livelihoods of farmers and their families.
We live in a rapidly changing world. We have to take on board EU enlargement, trade liberalisation, further reform of the common agricultural policy, changing consumer demands, and increasing competition, which I saw recently at the Salon International de l’Agro-Alimentaire (SIAL) Exhibition in France. All those things will impact on our rural economy and our agrifood industry.
It is my responsibility to ensure the long-term viability of the industry by enabling it to meet the challenge of change. We face many difficulties, but there are no quick fixes, no easy solutions and no single initiatives. Mr Poots complained because I had not resolved the industry’s problems in my 11 months as Minister. I make no apology for that. I am not a miracle worker, and I do not have a direct line to the Almighty. We need, in partnership with the industry, to develop a vision of where we want the industry to be in 10 or 20 years’ time and to develop an action plan that will set us on the way to achieving that goal step by step.
I have tried to respond honestly and in good faith to the points raised in the debate. I shall deal briefly with the timeliness of payments. I accept that there have been problems but we are still on track with our published timescale for payment. It will not be possible for all payments to be made in the first week of the set period. Next year, we shall publish a protocol that will clarify the process.
Mr Ford referred to the need for a formal mechanism to deal with complaints. A draft is being prepared that will include an independent element. We shall consult with the industry, the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee and the Assembly on that.
I shall write to those Members who raised issues that I have been unable to address, including MrHussey, who raised a statistical point. I do not want Members to leave today with the view that my Department would be unwilling to take on board the views or suggestions of others. I do not claim to have a monopoly on wisdom, nor does my Department. That is why we consult with the industry and the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee in line with our statutory duty.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I trust that the honLady will have time to comment on the Haskins report, which many Members have mentioned.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank Dr Paisley for his intervention.
I have heard MrSavage’s proposals, and I wish to examine them further. I would be glad to receive copies of the Danish legislation, which I shall discuss with him after I have examined them. Anything that can help the industry is good for all of us. I shall pursue any good idea as far as I can, but it must be workable, affordable, legal and, above all, in the best long-term interests of the agrifood industry and the rural community.
With regard to Dr Paisley’s question about the Haskins report, we are examining its implications for Northern Ireland, and when we have finished I shall write to the many Members who raised the matter.

Mr George Savage: At the outset of today’s business, I said that I sought a constructive debate. My intention throughout has been to stimulate action to get practical results, not to create confrontation. The genuine distress and the growing sense of hopelessness felt in the farming community merits radical action by the Assembly and its Executive.
In my introductory speech I expressed the need for the Assembly to make a difference. A sense of urgency about developing policies is needed, especially in the light of the democratic deficit experienced by Northern Ireland in the past three decades. We must learn to have courage and be decisive in law making. We must realise that we are in charge and we must act accordingly. The other side of that equation is that we are responsible. Let us act responsibly and be good stewards of what has been put in our hands. People look to us to make a difference. They expect, and we must deliver.
As several Members have rightly said, farmers are hard-working members of the community. They do not lead an easy life. However, no matter how sophisticated our economy becomes, farming will always remain a vital part of our economic life. Its well-being is our well-being. Our farmers are crying out to be listened to. Their complaints are not an exercise in whingeing. They are asking to be treated the same as farmers in the rest of Europe. That has been a recurring theme in the debate. Instance after instance of our over-enforcing of European regulations has been detailed — we have 18-page forms, although two-page forms are sufficient for the same regulations in the Irish Republic.
I have said in many recent speeches that the Government of this country too often see their role as that of a policeman, enforcing rules and regulations. Rather, the Government should be supporting their industries, including farming. That is the way it is in France and other European countries. Governments support their industries and do not continually enforce regulations that are much too detailed. Farmers want the same raft of incentives and the same beneficial structures that their counterparts in the rest of the EU enjoy, and to which they are entitled. They are certainly entitled to our support and to expect a genuine effort on our part to give them a level playing field.
There is much to be proud of in our achievements in agriculture: the quality of our produce; its reputation for greenness; and the uniqueness of our traceability scheme for beef. There is much that is commendable about the agriculture sector, but it needs to be nurtured by the Assembly and its Executive. The House and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development must move towards creating a legislative framework that will enable a capital restructuring of the agriculture sector along the lines that I have suggested.
The scheme will enable older farmers to retire with dignity. It will enable young blood to enter farming with new, fresh ideas and with a new drive towards excellence based on state-of-the-art methods. The legislative measures being considered in the Programme for Government contain much that is in consumers’ interests. That is only right. As a farmer, I know that it is consumers’ interests that govern the market. However, the consumers need the agricultural producers too. That is not a relationship in which one exploits the other; it is a relationship of mutual benefit. It needs to be a win-win situation.
Consumers have benefited through the operation of many market forces in recent years. The advent of large out-of-town supermarkets and the fierce competition among them has made it a consumers’ market. Prices have fallen, though it has to be said that the price to the consumers has fallen a lot less than the price that the big supermarkets pay to the farmers.
Farmgate prices are chronically low, the downside of which is that the agriculture sector has been dangerously exposed and weakened. For that to continue without some regulation, intervention, or strengthening of the farmers’ position in other ways will fatally undermine the agriculture industry. None of us can afford that to happen, and in our heart of hearts, we all know that.
My Colleague Mr Leslie painted a chilling picture of what would happen if market forces were allowed to continue to ravage agriculture. If the Government do not intervene to regulate that process, that will be an abdication of responsibility. A new Northern Ireland agriculture law, based on those elements of Danish law and French practice that I mentioned earlier, would put in place a structure and mechanism that could transform the situation. The Danish legislation is a model for action. It has been translated, and I shall let the Minister have a copy.
I welcome the suggestion that meetings should be arranged between me and the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to address the matter. I hope that the Minister will enable that to happen, and I am prepared to work hard to help to develop legislation to restructure the farming sector.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
There have been many expressions of support, not least from DrPaisley, for a close examination of the scheme and its implementation. We have time to implement it, but not as much as we think. That is why I call for people to be proactive. Rightly or wrongly, there is a widely held perception in the farming community that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development could do more and care more.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development must not catch the disease of indifference. It must develop a spirit of independence. Scotland is showing signs of independence from Westminster’s detailed supervision, and so must we. The direct rule Ministers have gone, and the baleful influence of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food no longer casts such a long shadow.
The facile idea that training would help to solve farming’s ills should be abandoned. An ombudsman scheme, as has been adopted in Scotland, would probably be welcome here, and the Department has the ability to look after any such scheme. That would show that the Department does not want to be the judge and jury, and that it wants to stop being a policeman. The same is true of training, which should keep people in the farming industry rather than encourage them to leave it, especially our young people.
Many areas could be addressed quickly. The promotion of our traceability scheme for beef as a marketing tool to sell Northern Ireland beef in European markets that have recently been blighted by the BSE scare springs to mind. The Minister told the House last week that she felt the time was not right, but there was widespread feeling throughout the Assembly that her decision should have been different. It is a decision that suits our competitors who do not have such a traceability scheme in operation. It will take time to raise our marketing profile, so now is the time to start.
There is much disquiet among farmers about apparent inaction, but my primary concern in today’s debate has been to set out proposals for a new structure that will be of long-term benefit to the entire agriculture community. Short-termism, however, is not the answer to the serious situation that the farming industry faces. Individual measures can help to alleviate an immediate problem. However, new structures and mechanisms need to be put in place to facilitate the long-term restructuring of agriculture and to allow a breathing space in which that can happen in a calm atmosphere rather than in an atmosphere of panic. My proposals for a farmers’ retirement scheme and a young farmers’ loan scheme would provide such a structure. As for MrMcGrady’s fears that financiers might have a field day, I say that financiers, like lawyers, are a necessary evil.
From the outset, it was intended that this motion would be non-confrontational. It was designed to generate a serious and constructive debate on an issue of great concern to everyone. The debate has done that. However, words in a debate are not enough; there must be a real and practical follow-through. Now that the Danish self-help scheme is on the table, it must not be swept under it. What is needed is an injection of new blood.

Mr Speaker: The Member should bring his remarks to a close.

Mr George Savage: I welcome the Minister’s positive response to the proposals contained in my speech. We need to find a way forward, and that can only be done by tackling the central issues. The key problems of indebtedness and farm incomes —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the Member’s time is up.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly recognises the difficulties facing the agricultural industry and the importance of the agricultural sector to the Northern Ireland economy and asks that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development take a more proactive role in furthering the interests of the agricultural industry.
Motion made
That the Assembly do now adjourn — [Mr Speaker.]

Reinstatement of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright

Mr Speaker: Many Members from all sides of the House have indicated a wish to speak. After discussion with the Business Committee, I have decided to allocate 15 minutes to the Member who raised the question, and five minutes to each of the other Members who wish to speak. Standing Orders restrict the Adjournment debate to one hour, so eight or nine Members, in addition to Mr Maginness, will have an opportunity to speak.

Mr Alban Maginness: On behalf of my constituent, Mrs Jean McBride, and her family, I raise the issue of the recent decision to retain Guardsmen Wright and Fisher in the Army. That decision has caused much outrage and concern in my constituency of North Belfast. For many of my constituents, their reinstatement flies in the face of the basic principles of justice.
Let me relate the basic facts of the case. On the bright morning of 4 September 1992, Peter McBride, aged 18, visited his sister in Edlingham Street in the New Lodge Road area of north Belfast. After that visit he was stopped by an Army foot patrol near Trainfield Street. The commander of the patrol questioned the youth and searched him thoroughly. He also searched a white T-shirt, which he was carrying when he was stopped. The T-shirt had been washed by his sister Róisín, and he had collected it from her home. After five or six minutes in the presence of the Army patrol, Peter McBride suddenly broke away from the soldiers and took off at speed. He vaulted over a garden wall into Spamount Street, ran down that street, turned left into Glenrosa Street and then right into Upper Meadow Street. He was pursued by the soldiers, with Guardsmen Wright and Fisher in the vanguard. The soldiers called on him to stop, but he did not — he kept running at a fast pace. At that point, Guardsmen Wright and Fisher opened fire on Peter McBride. Two bullets struck him in the back, killing him.
At their trial, in February 1995, the trial judge, Lord Justice Kelly, a former Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament and a former Attorney-General in the Unionist Government at Stormont, found that evidence given by Fisher and Wright had been both evasive and untruthful and that they had both lied about material aspects of the case. In particular, he was satisfied that they had seen Peter McBride being searched by their commander. He regarded Fisher’s defence that he believed that Peter McBride had been carrying a coffee-jar bomb in a white paper or plastic bag to be untruthful. Peter McBride was retreating from the guardsmen all the time, increasing the distance between them over the three streets. He also found that the incident was not a panic situation that required a split-second decision or a split-second action, if any action was required at all. He also found that the defence case that the guardsmen believed that Peter McBride was carrying a coffee jar to be false. The trial judge found that the two soldiers had deliberately aimed shots at Peter McBride, who posed no threat to them at all.
Lord Justice Kelly clearly found that there was no good reason to fire at Peter McBride and that there was no justification for Fisher having fired when he did. The judge concluded that Wright had deliberately lied about his reasons for firing and that, at the time of firing, he did not believe that there was any justification to do so. Therefore, both soldiers’ defences were thoroughly discredited. The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal heard the soldiers’ appeals and conducted a lengthy review of both cases. Their appeals were unanimously dismissed.
I have spent considerable time outlining the facts of the case, as determined by the court alone. It is important to remember that those are the judicially determined facts. I have not included assertions or determinations of anyone outside the courts. On 2 December 1998, both soldiers were released early on licence from their life sentences by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. They resumed their military duties that month.
Their release was made under normal life-sentence review procedures rather than under the Good Friday Agreement. However, I accept that it would have been politically impossible for the Government to release other prisoners under the agreement while keeping the two soldiers in prison. The early release of those men was a bitter pill for the McBride family to swallow, as it was for many others in my constituency. Nevertheless, it could not properly be argued that the soldiers did not deserve to benefit — like so many others caught up in the troubles — from the prisoner release scheme.
However, at the heart of the issue is not their early release, which most people now reluctantly accept, but their reinstatement in the Army. Under the Queen’s Regulations for the Army 1975, it is presumed that a soldier sentenced to imprisonment by a civilian court will be discharged unless exceptional reasons exist that make his retention desirable. That is the only test that can be applied to those two soldiers. Therefore, the question is whether exceptional reasons emerged from an objective and honest scrutiny of the facts of the case that I have just outlined.
The Army — through the Army Board, which is made up of senior Army officers and a junior Army Minister — had to determine whether there were exceptional reasons that made it desirable to retain the guardsmen, notwithstanding their convictions for murder their life imprisonment sentences. According to the Northern Ireland High Court, the Army Board was wrong to decide in 1998 that the soldiers should be retained on account of the argument put forward that they had made an error of judgement. The trial judge had clearly rejected that argument, since he regarded their defence as a lying one. Therefore, no error of judgement arose.
The Army Board’s decision was judicially reviewed and subsequently quashed. The judge at the review was of the opinion that the guardsmen’s application to be retained in the Army had to be considered afresh. Their application for retention in the Army was recently heard again by a differently constituted Army Board. Despite the fact that the second Army Board rejected the "error of judgement" argument, it unbelievably came to the same decision — that the guardsmen should be retained for Army service.
Given the facts that I have carefully rehearsed, it beggars belief that the Army Board could properly have arrived at that same decision to retain two convicted murderers in the Army. In view of the facts, as found by the Northern Ireland courts, no reasonable person could properly conclude that exceptional reasons existed that makes their retention desirable. There are exceptionally good reasons to do precisely the opposite. If there were exceptional reasons to retain them, let us know what they are. What makes it desirable to retain two convicted murderers in the Army?
If the Army Board’s decision were to be accepted as correct — in justice or in politics — the stature of our courts and our judges would be diminished. The decision implies that at least four judges arrived at judicially- flawed decisions in convicting those murderers. Equally, it suggests that the Northern Ireland judiciary is of no real consequence and that we have an inferior form of justice. Despite the fact that no contrition was shown by Guardsman Wright and that only partial contrition was expressed by Guardsman Fisher in May 1995, three months after his conviction, they were permitted back into the Army, with access to highly-powered and lethal weapons.
More disturbing is the report that both soldiers are referring their convictions to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). That completely undermines any possible residual element of contrition.
Let us remember that those men were not confined to paper pushing or potato peeling. They were sent to a dangerous theatre of war — Kosovo — where the risk of engagement with either regular or paramilitary forces was very high. By order of the Army Board, they are prevented from serving in Northern Ireland, as to do so is deemed inappropriate. Why is it deemed inappropriate for those men to serve in Northern Ireland but appropriate enough for them to serve in war-torn Kosovo? Does that decision display any consistency? What sort of message does that send out to the rest of the Army? Murder, the most grievous act of criminality, can be committed in Northern Ireland and those responsible will be looked after by the Army. A Northern Ireland citizen can be killed with impunity. So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, double standards can and will apply.
What would the reaction be in Britain if soldiers had murdered a citizen in inner-city Birmingham? Has anyone in the House any doubt that such soldiers would not be retained in the Army? If they were, could Members imagine the anger and outrage in Britain? Could Members imagine the outrage and anger if the British Medical Association were to readmit into its ranks, as a practising doctor, someone who had murdered a patient?
This case says that the murder of a citizen in inner-city Belfast is treated differently because, in some way, inner-city Belfast is different. Although the soldiers were convicted of murder, it was not really murder as understood by the Army. That has serious implications not only for Nationalist citizens but also for Unionist citizens.
What twisted mentality leads the military mind to perversely contort judicially decided facts, and to go through further contortions and obviously contrived hoops to end up with the decision to retain two men unworthy of the title "soldier"? Compare and contrast — [Interruption].

Mr Edwin Poots: Will the Member give way?

Mr Alban Maginness: No. My time is limited.
Compare and contrast the way in which the Army has dismissed soldiers convicted of the lesser crime of drug dealing. Since 1995, 130 soldiers have been tried for drug-related offences and most have been convicted. The Army has discharged 108 of them. What sort of message does that send out, either to those in the Army or to the public at large? Is the rationale laid down by those decisions that it is more acceptable in the British Army to murder someone than to indulge in drug abuse?
As the ‘Glasgow Herald’ said in its leader recently,
"Regardless of the tense situation in Northern Ireland at the time, their error of judgement (if such it was) should surely have been enough to cause their dismissal. How could the Army (or, indeed, any civilian population they were charged with protecting) trust them to act professionally in the future? Ministers Mandelson and Hoon should make every effort to ensure that justice is done. Fisher and Wright were murderers. They should still not be soldiers."
Who could disagree with such an unequivocal editorial?
The decision was innately unjust. To one’s ordinary sense of morality, it is plainly incomprehensible. It defies the ordinary sense of justice in Northern Ireland or, indeed, elsewhere in the world. It exposes double standards being applied by the Army to its personnel. It exposes double standards being applied by the Government to the people of Northern Ireland and, in particular, to the long-suffering people of north Belfast — not least, the deeply hurt family of the late Peter McBride.
The Army decision has, without doubt, devalued human life in Northern Ireland and, indeed, elsewhere. Its unjustness, cruelty and crass insensitivity is huge. I expect better from the Government, and I appeal to them to examine the decision’s enormous injustice and to reverse it. No self-respecting democratic Government can knowingly tolerate the inclusion of convicted murderers in the ranks of their army.

Mr Alan McFarland: There is no doubt that this is a tragic case of a serious error of judgement on the part of two soldiers under stress on the streets of Belfast. They were convicted and served six years before being released on licence in 1998, in the aftermath of the Belfast Agreement. It is unfortunate that this debate is taking place today, because security is a reserved matter. The debate that the SDLP wishes to have should have taken place in the House of Commons, where such matters are usually dealt with.
We might today have been better served discussing the enormous postal crisis in the lead-up to Christmas. Could this be a blatant attempt at electioneering on the part of the SDLP, to "out-Sinn Féin" Sinn Féin? The issue has been used by Sinn Féin and its so-called justice groups to carry out a vendetta against the Government and the Security Forces. It smacks of double standards. There was no hubbub from those groups about Garda collusion or the role of Fianna Fáil in the formation of the Provisional IRA. There was no investigation of 30 years of murders by the Provisional IRA, even though a substantial number of its victims came from the Nationalist community.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, we must try to put the past 30 years behind us. The Belfast Agreement was a watershed and an opportunity to move on. Hundreds of prisoners have been released, and millions of pounds are being spent on rehabilitation and making a new start. In an edition of Hansard last week there is a list of all the organisations into which money is currently being poured, such as ex-prisoners’ organisations.
We have a former senior IRA commander in the Government of this country. Other Assembly Members have been convicted of the most hideous offences. The two soldiers were, in the opinion of a court, considered to have paid their debt to society, and thus were released on licence. It is time to allow all those who wish to move on and make a new start to rebuild their lives.
If the Belfast Agreement is to mean anything, particular sections of the community must enter into the spirit of that agreement and cease to pursue vendettas.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I agree with the Member that the matter should have been debated in the House of Commons, where the SDLP has three Members. I was at the debate on the matter in the House of Commons, and I do not recall hearing any intervention from any of them.
Any murder is a tragedy. I understand well the feelings of those who lose people in such circumstances. However, it is ironic and absolute humbug for the mover of the Adjournment motion to draw parallels and say that those things should not be when he and his Colleagues worked their hardest to put into the Government of Northern Ireland those who headed up an organisation — the IRA — that performed such dastardly deeds.
I find it strange to hear the same Mr Maginness defending the court. Had this been another case, the Member and his Colleagues would have been challenging the court and picking holes in its judgement.
I said one thing in Westminster that I shall repeat today. Those two men did not go on to the streets of Belfast to commit murder. They did not plan the night before to take some people out and shoot them. They did nothing of the kind. The IRA — and some of its members sitting in the House today are active and were active in the IRA — planned and killed deliberately. MrMaginness tries to excuse the Government, but it is his friend, Mr Mandelson, who is responsible. It is his friend, Mr Hoon, who is responsible. He should not try to pass the buck to an Army Board. He knows perfectly well what Mr Hoon and the Secretary of State have said. He should not try to blame anonymous people sitting on an Army Board, because the Government are responsible for this act.
As has been emphasised, those people went to prison. They served their time. They were put on licence. They paid their debt to society. That should have been the end of it, but, of course, the same Mr Maginness is quite happy to have IRA men in the new police force, and to put out 50% of the Protestants so that they can get 50% of his own kind in. It is a strange thing that he is going to get the IRA into the new police force about which he always talks and argues. Those men committed an act under drastic and terrible circumstances, and it must be drastic and terrible for them and everyone else involved. However, they were not murderers who went on to the streets of Belfast to commit murder — even Mr Maginness cannot indict them of that and prove that they were.

Mr Gerry Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The killing of north Belfast teenager Peter McBride goes directly to the heart of the relationship between Irish Nationalists and the British Government in Ireland. Peter McBride’s case is not the only one. Almost 400 Nationalists were killed as a direct result of Crown forces’ activity. Many of those killings were planned, as were hundreds more as a result of collusion with Loyalist murder gangs.
Peter would have been just another forgotten name or statistic if it had not been for two factors. One was the dogged and brave insistence of his parents and family, who did not, and will not, let this human rights issue be buried. The other is the British Army’s stubborn stupidity and racism.
The facts are as painful as they are clear. In 1992, Peter McBride, at the young age of 18, was stopped close to his home and thoroughly searched by a Scots Guards foot patrol. It has never been in dispute that he was unarmed. After he was searched, two soldiers, Wright and Fisher, shot Peter McBride in the back as he ran away, killing him. They were charged with murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. They were two of only a handful of soldiers ever to be convicted of any of the hundreds of killings carried out by the forces of the Crown. They had served less than six years when they were hurriedly released. The British Army should have discharged them, but it did not. Had Peter McBride been British and lived in London or Liverpool, we might safely assume that the soldiers involved would have been discharged.
It was a painful experience for all of Peter’s family. More pain was to come when the British Army Board twice ruled that Fisher and Wright could remain in the Army. In the midst of their hurt and grief, Peter’s family took a judicial review to the High Court to challenge that decision. The court overturned the Army Board’s ruling and instructed it to reconsider. Allegedly, another board was put up, which reconsidered the matter and came to the same unfortunate conclusion. Since 1995, when Fisher and Wright were convicted, many soldiers have been dismissed from the British Army after positive drugs tests. It would be hard for anyone to come to any conclusion other than that the British Government look on the murder of Irish people by the forces of the British Crown as little more than a misdemeanour.
What the McBrides want from the British Government is straightforward. They want recognition that Peter was innocent — a victim, a human being just like any other — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. If Members wish to have a conversation, they ought to have it outside the Chamber.

Mr Gerry Kelly: He had a family and friends who loved him. They want to grieve for Peter instead of watching his killers being patted on the back by the British Government. They do not want those two men to be handed back their rifles so that they can repeat their performance on someone else’s son; they want recognition that Peter and his family are the victims. In the scheme of things, that is not much for which to ask. Instead of being allowed to grieve properly, they are being publicly slapped in the face again and again.
The actions of the British Ministry of Defence are racist. It thinks that it does not matter because Peter was just a "Paddy". It affects us all, especially when one considers the timing of the Ministry of Defence’s announcement in the middle of the deepest crisis that the peace process has faced since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
I leave it to Jean McBride to articulate her feelings. In her statement, I see the determination, commitment and stamina that the British Government have underestimated to their cost and shame in the past. Speaking after she heard the British Ministry of Defence decision on 24 November, she said she was
"completely devastated by the decision".
She continued:
"but if they think that I am going to give up they have another thing coming. They think that Peter’s life is worth nothing — shoot him in the back and forget about him. We will fight on until these two murderers are kicked out. Tony Blair should be ashamed of himself. The anniversary of Peter’s birthday is next week and if they think that I brought my son into this world to have him murdered and forgotten, then they just don’t understand what it is to be a mother."
The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, needs to know that this is a courageous family that cannot be dismissed. Peter’s mother, father and the rest of the family can be sure that they will not be fighting on their own. The British Prime Minister must accept that Irish people are not non-people. They need to be able to grieve and to know that soldiers who murder Irish people will be punished, not rewarded. He needs to tell his Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, to kick Wright and Fisher out of the British Army.

Mr Norman Boyd: Today the SDLP is yet again demonstrating a totally hypocritical stance. Throughout 30 years of terror the SDLP has condemned violence while not hesitating to profit politically from it. The SDLP is always telling Unionists that we should forget the past. Therefore, why does the SDLP create an issue about Guardsmen Fisher and Wright today? There is no necessity to re-open the court case and to re-enact it in the Chamber.
The SDLP demonstrates sheer hypocrisy with its selective condemnation of the two Scots Guardsmen, James Fisher and Mark Wright. The SDLP supports the disbandment of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the release of terrorist prisoners, including the release of Provisional IRA terrorists who have murdered hundreds of innocent Protestants, Roman Catholics and members of the security forces.
The SDLP wants mass murderers to be able to hold positions on policing boards and for the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland to accept terrorists in Government, including having a terrorist hold the position of Minister of Education. The SDLP has endorsed a convicted terrorist as a Minister in the Government of Northern Ireland.
The SDLP wants the two guardsmen removed from the Army, yet it wants the people of Northern Ireland to stomach Martin McGuinness as the Minister of Education even though he has held the position of Chief of Staff of the Provisional IRA, as well as being a convicted terrorist. Martin McGuinness was once named as Britain’s number-one terrorist by ‘The Cook Report’ and is on — [Interruption].

Mr Gerry Kelly: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Member speaks about the Minister of Education and is well off the subject of the Adjournment debate.

Mr Speaker: I urge the Member to return to the subject of the debate.

Mr Norman Boyd: The so-called Minister’s sickening view that freedom can only be gained at the point of an IRA rifle is endorsed by the SDLP.

Mr Speaker: Order. Members, where possible, should not feel themselves wholly bound by a prepared script. It is sometimes helpful to have notes, and it is always helpful to be prepared, but it adds much more to the debate when a degree of flexibility and response to the debate is possible. I urge all Members to enter into the spirit of the debate rather than be wholly restricted to a script. It also makes it easier to respond to requests from the Chair.

Mr Norman Boyd: Mr Speaker, I find that a little surprising when other Members, including the Member who spoke before me, read from scripts.

Mr Speaker: If the Speaker is to refer, he must always refer when one or other Member is speaking. It is like the man who received two ties from his wife. When he came down wearing one, his wife asked what was wrong with the other one. Inevitably when one makes a reference it will be to one Member, and that Member will feel picked upon. I assure the Member that I am not picking on him. Rather, I refer to the general principle. However, I raised it in respect of him because he returned to his script, manifestly ignoring the Chair’s advice.

Mr Sammy Wilson: On a further point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for sexist remarks about wives and their opinions on ties to be made in the House?

Mr Speaker: I have no doubt that the same matters might be referred to in reverse, although I am trying to work out what the equivalent of the tie would be. However, I must remind MrWilson that the use of mobile phones in the Chamber is out of order.

Mr Norman Boyd: The SDLP has no protests or complaints with IRA terrorists who are made advisers to Ministers in the Executive. The SDLP does not call for public inquiries into the unsolved murders of innocent Protestants and members of the security forces. The SDLP never called for convicted terrorists to be barred from council positions or from the Assembly.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Will my Colleague give way?

Mr Speaker: I think that we might be relieved.

Mr Cedric Wilson: We should compliment the SDLP on providing this public service. The SDLP is exposing its true nature and what it has embarked upon for the past 30 years in Northern Ireland when it has attempted to vilify the security forces. The SDLP has not stopped yet. It now tells the Assembly, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that it is unable to support the new forces of law and order in Northern Ireland. From Mr Alban Maginness we are witnessing the real face of the SDLP.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have listened for some time. One thing that I am certain of is that Guardsmen Fisher and Wright were not members of the SDLP. They are the subjects of the debate, not the SDLP. It is reasonable to make references. However, we had a situation in which every sentence began with the words "The SDLP", as has the intervention. I plead with Members to return to the subject, which is the question of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright and their reinstatement.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I will let my Colleague resume. It is sad, in the light of the fact that the security forces have been protecting Mr Alban Maginness’s constituents and his culture and background every bit as much as they have protected the Unionist and Protestant community in Northern Ireland, that the Member has moved this motion today. It is an absolute disgrace.

Mr Speaker: I need to advise Mr Wilson — his Colleague who gave way will appreciate this — that he cannot restrict the Member who gives way. Interventions and interruptions in other Members’ speeches should be brief and to the point. They are not an opportunity for intervention speeches, as Mr Wilson’s was in danger of becoming.
Mr Boyd may continue, although his time is now short.

Mr Norman Boyd: There is no requirement to revisit the position of the two guardsmen, and AlbanMaginness is being mischievous in doing so. It must be borne in mind that Peter McBride had a number of criminal convictions and had been running away from the soldiers at the time he was shot. One soldier believed that Peter McBride had opened fire on him, and another believed that Peter McBride was about to throw a lethal coffee-jar bomb at him. At that time, soldiers and police were being shot, bombed and murdered daily throughout Northern Ireland, and coffee-jar bomb attacks were a daily occurrence.
In a letter to ‘The Times’ after the trial, the two soldiers’ commanding officer, Lt-Col Tim Spicer, wrote:
"I am completely satisfied that neither of these young soldiers had anything other than the firmly held and honest belief that they were involved in a terrorist incident and therefore acted entirely in good faith, in accordance with the law, the rules of engagement and their military training."
Mr Maginness’s motion graphically illustrates the anti-British Army bias of the SDLP and the rest of the pan-Nationalist front. That bias has not changed in 30years. Therefore, his argument lacks all credibility, and the vast majority of people in NorthernIreland will see that. The two soldiers were doing a difficult job in a violent environment, and most people believe that they should never have been jailed under such circumstances.

Mr Fraser Agnew: If the debate serves no other purpose, it highlights the fundamental differences in the mindsets of the Nationalist and Unionist sides. Nationalists and Republicans were in favour of the release, under the terms of the Belfast Agreement, of the ShankillRoad bomber, who was guilty of mass murder. He spent less time in jail than the two Scots Guardsmen. The Shankill Road bomber will have received funding to help his rehabilitation into society, and, as in many cases, he was no doubt in receipt of much more than many of the victims who lost their loved ones. No one on the Republican side objected to the release or to the moneys received, and no one objected to such a person being gainfully employed. The actions of the ShankillRoad bomber were the result of careful planning. His callous actions were deliberate and premeditated.
Contrast that with the reaction to the release of the two guardsmen, MarkWright and JamesFisher. Unlike the ShankillRoad bomber, they did not go out to deliberately maim and kill. Their actions were not the result of careful planning. PeterMcBride was a petty criminal running away from the law when he was shot. Arguably, that was not a crime that should have resulted in him being shot dead, but tensions were high in the area. Two days previously, a colleague of the two Scots Guardsmen was callously shot dead by the ProvisionalIRA.
The soldiers made a genuine mistake, yet they have been accused, by Republicans in particular, of murder. Should a mistake be termed "murder", as was the case here? Unfortunately, the matter is now being used as a political football and many statements, especially from Republicans, reek of revenge and pure vindictiveness. Is anyone asking SinnFéin to purge itself of convicted murderers and criminals?

Mr Speaker: Order. I should draw Members’ attention to the terms in which they are referring to the outcome of judicial proceedings. It seems to me that querying the outcome of judicial proceedings can properly be done only by substantive motion. At Westminster, the findings of a superior court may not be queried by way of remarks or statements — only by way of a substantive motion. Some remarks today query the outcome of a court case. There may be a question as to the precise standing of this place as a court, but it is proper for me to draw the matter to Members’ attention and to advise them to be cautious in that regard. I will study Hansard and look at the matter, not only in respect of this debate but in respect of others. I would appreciate Members’ being cautious in querying the findings of properly constituted courts.

Mr Fraser Agnew: As always, I am more than happy to accept your advice on such matters.
Is anyone asking Sinn Féin to purge the party of the convicted murderers and criminals in its ranks? They have been convicted.
Indeed, it was almost mandatory to have a conviction to qualify for Sinn Féin membership. However, hypocritically, the Army is expected to purge its ranks of those who have paid their debt to society. Those two soldiers acted without malice. It was an unfortunate tragedy, and now they are being persecuted while hard-line terrorists, who went out to murder, are released from jail early. Those soldiers deserve justice and fairness, not further punishment through a vicious and vengeful campaign aimed at taking away their chosen career.

Ms Jane Morrice: The issue is wider than the individuals concerned. The Assembly is aware, as we work to build confidence in the Army and the other security services, of our concern that the decision to reinstate the two guardsmen could imply that the Army is above the law. People are right to have high expectations of the security forces. We expect them to be fair and efficient and to enshrine the principles of democracy and justice. People will be rightly disappointed to see soldiers who have been found guilty of murder — the most serious of crimes in a court of law — return to their regiments.
People will also be confused by the contradictory judgements in these cases, which will serve only to undermine trust in the Army. Independent assessors and observers have also raised concerns. Soldiers have been dismissed for lesser crimes, as has already been stated. Surely murder should be treated much more seriously.

Mr Seamus Close: I am somewhat saddened that this has become a Unionist versus Nationalist debate, argument and fight. I have not gleaned any sense of humanity or feeling for those who were wronged.
The decision by the Army Board to reinstate Messrs Wright and Fisher caused huge problems for many people. I do not speak about those who take any and every opportunity to strike out at the security forces or those to whom I would refer as Army "bashers"; I am talking about honest, decent people who have supported law and order down through the years when the forces of law and order were subjected to attacks from terrorists on both sides of the proverbial house. I firmly contend that the decision to reinstate those men was wrong. It was both insensitive and counterproductive and could bring the Army and forces of law and order into disrepute.
I do not need to rehearse further the arguments or the circumstances that surround the tragic death of Peter McBride. They have already been well rehearsed and documented, although, given what I have heard during the debate, some people still seem to have some of the facts wrong. Moreover, I do not need to rehearse the events that took place at the subsequent trial of the two soldiers.
It is suffice it to say that Peter McBride was shot dead and that two soldiers were found guilty of murder. Those are the incontrovertible facts. No one has suggested that Peter McBride ought to have been shot dead or that the two soldiers should not have been found guilty of a crime. If we live in this land of "maybe", "what if" and "what not", perhaps the soldiers made a mistake. Perhaps the charge was wrong. Perhaps Peter should not have run. However, those "maybes" and "what ifs" cannot alter the brutal fact that Peter McBride is dead. The soldiers shot him, and they were found guilty of murder.
To dismiss those facts as simply a mistake — "The poor soldiers made a mistake" — or an error of judgement diminishes human life. There is no mistake, no error of judgement that anyone could possibly make that could have greater consequences than the destruction of human life, and no apologies can undo that error or that wrong. That mistake is not the same as a mistake of indiscipline, insubordination, or drunkenness. I understand that soldiers have been dismissed from the Army for those reasons.
People are only dismissed from the Army because the Army must be seen to be a disciplined force in the eyes of everyone. How can it be seen to be a disciplined force if it includes within its ranks those who have been found guilty of murder? How can it be seen as a disciplined force if those who make that type of error — and let us assume that it was an error of judgement — are within its ranks? Are we to give a second chance, through reinstatement, so that those individuals carrying weapons of death can make the same mistake again? No. The price of another error of judgement is a price that I, and society, would not be prepared to pay, because it is the price of a human life.
The decision to reinstate the two soldiers has driven a huge stake through the family of Peter McBride. It is insensitive and has not taken their feelings into account. Some will say, "What about those other murderers that we see on the streets, those who have been released under the Good Friday Agreement?" People who make that point miss the point. If society makes that point, it misses the point. The law is there to defend the general public. Those within the forces of law and order who abuse or sink below those standards do a great disservice to the people that they try to serve. To compare them to terrorists is a disservice to the general public.

Mr Duncan Dalton: I support the motion, but I must make it clear that I do so out of individual choice and am not speaking on behalf of my party. The case is a terrible tragedy. One young man is dead and two others carry the dual burden of a conviction and their own conscience. I had hoped that this debate might be more than just a sectarian slanging match, but, unfortunately, it appears that Members are unable to look beyond their own sectarian interests. They have to prove how much of a super-Prod or super-Taig they can be in the House, rather than deal with the real issue.
I have grave concerns about the retention of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright in the Scots Guards following their conviction for murder, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. I agree with Mr Maginness that, while other prisoners were benefiting from early release, it was correct that those men should also have been released from prison. The issue is whether they should be retained as members of the British Army. That is the subject of our debate, not whether they should have been released, and not whether they are part of a general ambiguity towards the wrongdoings of the past in Northern Ireland.
My comments should not be taken as criticism of the British Army. I am not here to bash the British Army. I am a former member, unlike those who have tried to defend the Army today, with the exception of my Colleague Mr McFarland. The circumstances are specific to the individual cases that we are discussing. The British Army has an honourable record in Northern Ireland. A third of a million men have served in Northern Ireland during the past 30 years. More than 650 of them have given their lives, and more than 6,000 carry wounds that constantly remind them of their service. Their record is an honourable one, and they have served their country and this community admirably.
My comments should not be seen as supportive of Republican-inspired vendettas against the security forces. Those community groups who purport to defend justice seem to apply that term only to certain victims. Their attitude appears to be basically sectarian. If groups such as the Pat Finucane Centre or the Committee on the Administration of Justice really seek justice for all, when will they take up, for example, the cases of Chief Inspector Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan, who were murdered by the Provisional IRA in South Armagh as a direct result of Garda collusion? Does their concept of justice not extend to members of the RUC?
As for the Members of Sinn Féin, I have no doubt that they have stood in the Chamber with straight faces and talked about human rights, justice and the terror of the British Army. I remind the House that the single biggest killer of the Nationalist people in Belfast was the Provisional IRA. The number of those killed by the police and the Army — and many of those killed were active terrorists in the course of acts of violence — is barely a quarter of the number killed by the Provisional IRA. The real oppressors of the Nationalist people were, and still are, the Provisional IRA. The spokesmen who talk about rights and justice while their colleagues brutalise their own community nightly make me laugh.
Having said that, we must remember that the issue being debated today is one of principle. The crime of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright is different to many committed in this country. It is not comparable to those who deliberately plan brutal murders, but it was still a crime. It was murder even though it was mitigated, to a degree, by the circumstances. The fact that Fisher and Wright committed the murder while wearing the Queen’s uniform should not be an excuse. In principle, I doubt that many in the House believe that someone convicted of serious crimes prior to application should serve in the police or the Army. It is not acceptable for an ex-IRA man or a ex-UVF man to be in the security forces, so why is an exception being made this time?
Of course, the circumstances of that case are different. Those two men were soldiers, operating in a difficult situation. They were young men doing a tough job as best they could. However, they made a terrible and fatal mistake, and they failed in their duty. I ask people to step back from the emotion and remember the cold facts. Peter McBride was an innocent 18-year-old man who was out in broad daylight on 4 September 1992. He was stopped by an Army patrol and searched. During that time he got involved in an altercation with team commander Sgt Swift, and he ran from the patrol. He was pursued and, from a distance of approximately 80 to 90 yards, was shot twice in the back and fatally wounded. He crawled into an alley behind Hillman Street and lay dying.
I ask Members, especially those on this side of the House, to remember that. An innocent and unarmed citizen of the United Kingdom was killed by soldiers of the United Kingdom Army, on the streets of the United Kingdom, in circumstances that a United Kingdom judge sitting in a United Kingdom court found to constitute murder. That should be a matter of concern to everyone, whether Unionist or Nationalist.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mr Alex Attwood: May I acknowledge the speeches of the previous three Members who spoke in this debate. MrAgnew said that this is a campaign motivated by, as he put it, revenge and vindictiveness. If there is one truth about this particular campaign, it is that neither revenge nor vindictiveness motivates Peter McBride’s family. They want closure on the issue and to put the matter behind them without any further revenge, reparation or prosecution. That point should be acknowledged.
We have learnt, belatedly, that the purpose of the debate is to raise this issue and to raise it in a way that will let people step back from their instinct to defend or condemn the Army and allow them to make an informed judgement about the conduct of two soldiers on the streets of north Belfast in 1992. As we have learnt — belatedly — that can happen, and it has happened before.
Mr Boyd said that the motion is motivated by anti-British Army bias, but there are others who disagree. To say that those soldiers — who had been given specific responsibilities for the security and maintenance of the law in Northern Ireland — can return to the Army and continue as before is something that I have real difficulty in accepting.
Others, such as the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church, have said that they find real difficulties with the soldiers’ reinstatement. That is not evidence of anti-British or anti-British Army bias. Mr McFarland said that we should pursue vendettas. I think that shows that this is not a vendetta.
Furthermore, I do not agree that we should forget the past; we should deal with the past. We need a truth process that will address properly and creatively all the harsh things that have been done and said. In that context, the matter under discussion has not been carefully selected but is part of a wider truth and reconciliation process that can help to inform our society.
Dr Paisley acknowledged that those who have suffered bereavement in the North continue to suffer. I want to acknowledge that he said that. I might even agree with him that, on that day, those soldiers did not go out to murder. I do not know what was in their heads and hearts on that day and at that time, but Dr Paisley might well be right about that. However, it is also true that, just as Loyalist paramilitary armies in the North went out with murder in their heads and their hearts, there were elements in the British Army, especially in the Forces Research Unit (FRU), who went out with that intention. Those in the British Army who were responsible for the murder of Pat Finucane, among others, should be called to account sooner rather than later.
As Mr Maginness said, the report of the Army Board will, sooner or later, come out. When it does, we must all ask ourselves the questions that the Army Board answered in the affirmative. First, were there exceptional circumstances to justify the return of the soldiers to the British Army? Secondly, on that day, were people in the area carrying coffee-jar bombs and was the situation tense? If we conclude that none of those circumstances applied, we must ask whether it is legitimate to allow people who used their guns to murder to use those guns in the future.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: We have heard breathtaking hypocrisy from the Members opposite. The Member for North Belfast, Mr Maginness, usually comes to the House piously wringing his hands and telling us that he will never contribute to any debate that might be contentious. He appeals to us from his perch of piety to withdraw from any debate that could be regarded as contentious. Today, he has brought a highly contentious issue to the House. As the Member for North Down, Mr McFarland, said, the issue should not have been brought to the House, because another place has responsibility for such matters. It is regrettable that the SDLP has done so.
I do not object to our debating the issue, but I object strongly to SDLP hypocrisy. Many of the words that they have uttered will come back to haunt them. In many other places — whether he has been elected to them or not — John Hume, whom, I believe, has never spoken in this House, tells people to draw a line under the past. So much for that — today, Front-Bench SDLP Members have raked over the dirt and stirred the embers of the past. They want to rub people’s noses in it; that is what is so contemptible.
The McBride family deserves sympathy. However, the way that the family’s case has been treated by Nationalist and Republican representatives in the House diminishes the respect and the sympathy that they have gained.
If the McBride family is entitled to sympathy, the Fisher and Wright families — and, indeed, Guardsmen Fisher and Wright — are also entitled to sympathy for the difficult job that young men were asked to do in the streets because of butchers who are represented in the House today. Mr Maginness said many things, such as it was "a bitter pill for the McBride family to swallow", "unworthy of the title ‘soldier’", "they defy justice" and "double standards". All of that can be said about the Belfast Agreement, and how it released many other of this society’s killers, but I did not hear it from him. Not once did he utter any such condemnation. Why does the Member fail to table a motion about the unworthiness of people in Government who have been convicted? Why does he not do that? Why does he not join with me today and sign such a motion? I do not believe he has reached this new high moral ground. He said that it is a bitter pill to swallow. It certainly is a bitter pill when prisoners’ groups get £6 million, as was seen across the Province last weekend. There is no doubt that if we are going to apply the new Maginness standards of defying justice — "bitter pill" and "double standards" — the Belfast Agreement is unworthy of the name "peace agreement".
Mr Maginness also has selective amnesia regarding the troubles. I can list for him young men of 17, 18, 19 and in their twenties who were murdered in his constituency. Mr McCaig, Mr McCaughey, Mr James Hesketh, and Mr James Macklin were all soldiers. One was shot on the Antrim Road, one on the Grosvenor Road, and two at Ligoniel. I never heard him uttering a word about those murders. I never heard him bring a motion before this House about those young men. What were they doing? They were defending him and his constituents. What price did they have to pay? They paid with their lives.
He has the audacity to lecture Members on this side of the House about unfitness. Then we have Mr "not fit to practise as a solicitor" Attwood get up and support him. How dare he lecture any Member in this House about unfitness, and people being unfit to be in Government in Northern Ireland when he supports it? If they are going to start pointing the finger, they had better look at the three fingers pointing back at them. If people —

Dr Joe Hendron: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely it must be out of order for the Member to make a direct personal attack on another Member like that. It is an absolute disgrace. I would like to hear what you have to say about it.

Mr Speaker: If personal attacks are made on Members, they have the right to respond. I am happy to give the Member an opportunity, if he so wishes, to respond without interruption after Mr Paisley Jnr has finished.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I would be happy to read the articles that were printed in ‘The Irish News’ — the newspaper that helped the other Member from West Belfast many times in the past. He may wish to read those articles. If the SDLP has set new standards in this debate, those standards apply to it as much as they apply to Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. In this House, we have bomb-planters, widow-makers and orphan-creators. There is not a word of condemnation from the SDLP about those people, but condemnation at the double for the British Army.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up. I call Mr Attwood, should he wish to make a response, given that an attack was made on him.

Mr Alex Attwood: I note what Ian Paisley Jnr said — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Alex Attwood: The particular comment that he made is untrue, and it is a matter of public record that it is untrue. Secondly, everybody should be judged against standards. Everybody in the Chamber, myself included, should be judged against many standards.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to come to the House and tell us, when the Law Society —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will resume his seat. He has had an opportunity to make his remarks, and he will know that he and his Colleagues are quite content to exercise their right to make a response when accusations are made against them. Therefore, I have given Mr Attwood — as I will give any other Member — the right to respond when accusations of that kind, as distinct from an entirely political kind, are made against a Member. Mr Attwood has responded. The matter, so far as I am concerned, is therefore closed, and I think it improper to engage in further discussion or debate about it.
Adjourned at 3.55 pm.